Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp precisely:


rwp@1Corinthians:2:7 @{God's wisdom in a mystery} (\theou sophian en mustˆri“i\). Two points are here sharply made. It is God's wisdom (note emphatic position of the genitive \theou\) in contrast to the wisdom of this age. Every age of the world has a conceit of its own and it is particularly true of this twentieth century, but God's wisdom is eternal and superior to the wisdom of any age or time. God's wisdom is alone absolute. See on ¯2:1| for mystery. It is not certain whether {in a mystery} is to be taken with {wisdom} or {we speak}. The result does not differ greatly, probably with {wisdom}, so long a secret and now at last revealed (Colossians:1:26; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:7|). {That hath been hidden} (\tˆn apokekrummenˆn\). See strkjv@Romans:16:25; strkjv@Colossians:1:26; strkjv@Ephesians:3:5|. Articular perfect passive participle of \apokrupt“\, more precisely defining the indefinite \sophian\ (wisdom). {Foreordained before the worlds} (\pro“risen pro t“n ai“n“n\). This relative clause (\hˆn\) defines still more closely God's wisdom. Note \pro\ with both verb and substantive (\ai“n“n\). Constative aorist of God's elective purpose as shown in Christ crucified (1Corinthians:1:18-24|). "It was no afterthought or change of plan" (Robertson and Plummer). {Unto our glory} (\eis doxan hˆm“n\). "The glory of inward enlightenment as well as of outward exaltation" (Lightfoot).

rwp@1Corinthians:6:9 @{The unrighteous} (\adikoi\). To remind them of the verb \adike“\ just used. {The Kingdom of God} (\theou basileian\). Precisely, God's kingdom. {Be not deceived} (\mˆ planƒsthe\). Present passive imperative with negative \mˆ\. Do not be led astray by plausible talk to cover up sin as mere animal behaviourism. Paul has two lists in verses 9,10|, one with repetition of \oute\, neither (fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, or \malakoi\, abusers of themselves with men or \arsenokoitai\ or sodomites as in strkjv@1Timothy:1:10| a late word for this horrid vice, thieves, covetous), the other with \ou\ not (drunkards, revilers, extortioners). All these will fall short of the kingdom of God. This was plain talk to a city like Corinth. It is needed today. It is a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:28 @{But and if thou marry} (\ean de kai gamˆsˆis\). Condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of being determined, with the ingressive first aorist (late form) active subjunctive with \ean\: "But if thou also commit matrimony or get married," in spite of Paul's advice to the contrary. {Thou hast not sinned} (\ouch hˆmartes\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\, to sin, to miss a mark. Here either Paul uses the timeless (gnomic) aorist indicative or by a swift transition he changes the standpoint (proleptic) in the conclusion from the future (in the condition) to the past. Such mixed conditions are common (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1020, 1023). Precisely the same construction occurs with the case of the virgin (\parthenos\) except that the old form of the first aorist subjunctive (\gˆmˆi\) occurs in place of the late \gamˆsˆi\ above. The MSS. interchange both examples. There is no special point in the difference in the forms. {Shall have tribulation in the flesh} (\thlipsin tˆi sarki hexousin\). Emphatic position of \thlipsin\ (pressure). See strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| \skolops tˆi sarki\ (thorn in the flesh). {And I would spare you} (\eg“ de hum“n pheidomai\). Possibly conative present middle indicative, I am trying to spare you like \agei\ in strkjv@Romans:2:4| and \dikaiousthe\ in strkjv@Galatians:5:4|.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:1 @{Now concerning spiritual gifts} (\peri de t“n pneumatik“n\). Clearly one of the items asked about in the letter to Paul (7:1|) and introduced precisely as the problem of meats offered to idols (8:1|). This question runs to the end of chapter 14. Plainly much trouble had arisen in Corinth in the exercise of these gifts.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:16 @Points explained precisely as in verse 15|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:28 @{And when all things have been subjected} (\hotan de hupotagˆi ta panta\). Second aorist passive subjunctive of \hupotass“\, not perfect. Merely, "when the all things are subjected unto him." The aorist subjunctive has given translators a deal of needless trouble in this passage. It is prophecy, of course. {That God may be all in all} (\hina ˆi ho theos panta en pasin\). The final goal of all God's redemptive plans as Paul has so well said in strkjv@Romans:11:36|. Precisely this language Paul will use of Christ (Colossians:3:11|).

rwp@1John:3:9 @{Doeth no sin} (\hamartian ou poiei\). Linear present active indicative as in verse 4| like \hamartanei\ in verse 8|. The child of God does not have the habit of sin. {His seed} (\sperma autou\). God's seed, "the divine principle of life" (Vincent). Cf. strkjv@John:1|. {And he cannot sin} (\kai ou dunatai hamartanein\). This is a wrong translation, for this English naturally means "and he cannot commit sin" as if it were \kai ou dunatai hamartein\ or \hamartˆsai\ (second aorist or first aorist active infinitive). The present active infinitive \hamartanein\ can only mean "and he cannot go on sinning," as is true of \hamartanei\ in verse 8| and \hamartan“n\ in verse 6|. For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see \hamartˆte\ and \hamartˆi\ in strkjv@2:1|. A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of \hamartanein\ here. Paul has precisely John's idea in strkjv@Romans:6:1| \epimen“men tˆi hamartiƒi\ (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with \hamartˆs“men\ in strkjv@Romans:6:15| (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive).

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 65 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR The Epistle is not anonymous, but claims to be written by "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1Peter:1:1|), that is Cephas (Simon Peter). If this is not true, then the book is pseudonymous by a late writer who assumed Peter's name, as in the so-called Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. "There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation, though Irenaeus is the first to quote it by name" (Bigg). Eusebius (_H.E_. iii. 25.2) places it among the acknowledged books, those accepted with no doubt at all. We here assume that Simon Peter wrote this Epistle or at any rate dictated it by an amanuensis, as Paul did in Romans (Romans:16:22|). Bigg suggests Silvanus (Silas) as the amanuensis or interpreter (1Peter:5:12|), the obvious meaning of the language (\dia\, through). He may also have been the bearer of the Epistle. It happens that we know more of Peter's life than of any of the twelve apostles because of his prominence in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. In the _Student's Chronological New Testament_ I have given a full list of the passages in the Gospels where Peter appears with any clearness and the material is rich and abundant. The account in Acts is briefer, though Peter is the outstanding man in the first five chapters during his career in Jerusalem. After the conversion of Saul he begins to work outside of Jerusalem and after escaping death at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts:12:3ff.|) he left for a while, but is back in Jerusalem at the Conference called by Paul and Barnabas (Acts:15:6-14; Gal strkjv@2:1-10|). After that we have no more about him in Acts, though he reappears in Antioch and is rebuked by Paul for cowardice because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-21). He travelled for the Gospel among the Jews of the Dispersion (Galatians:2:9|) with his wife (1Corinthians:9:5|), and went to Asia Minor (1Peter:1:1|) and as far as Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|). Besides Silvanus he had John Mark with him also (1Peter:5:13|), who was said by the early Christian writers to have been Peter's "interpreter" in his preaching, since Peter was not expert in the Greek (Acts:4:13|), and who also wrote his Gospel under the inspiration of Peter's preaching. We are not able to follow clearly the close of his life or to tell precisely the time of his death. He was apparently put to death in A.D. 67 or 68, but some think that he was executed in Rome in A.D. 64.

rwp@1Peter:2:18 @{Servants} (\hoi oiketai\). Note article with the class as with \andres\ (3:7|), though not with \gunaikes\ (3:1|). \Oiketˆs\, old word from \oikos\ (house), means one in the same house with another (Latin _domesticus_), particularly house servants (slaves) in distinction from the general term \doulos\ (slave). "Ye domestics." See similar directions to Christian servants (slaves) in strkjv@Colossians:3:22-25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:5-7; strkjv@1Timothy:6:1f.; strkjv@Titus:2:9f|. \Oiketˆs\ in N.T. occurs only here, strkjv@Luke:16:13; strkjv@Acts:10:7; strkjv@Romans:14:4|. {Be in subjection} (\hupotassomenoi\). Present middle participle of \hupotass“\, common late compound to subject oneself to one (Luke:2:51|). Either the participle is here used as an imperative (so in strkjv@3:1,7|) as in strkjv@Romans:12:16f.|, or the imperative \este\ has to be supplied (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 945). {To your masters} (\tois despotais\). Dative case of \despotˆs\, old word for absolute owner in contrast with \doulos\. It is used also of God (Luke:2:29; strkjv@Acts:4:24,29|) and of Christ (2Peter:2:1; strkjv@Jude:1:4|). \Kurios\ has a wider meaning and not necessarily suggesting absolute power. {To the good and gentle} (\tois agathois kai epieikesin\). Dative case also with the article with class. For \epieikˆs\ see on ¯James:3:17|. There were slave-owners (masters) like this as there are housekeepers and employers of workmen today. This is no argument for slavery, but only a sidelight on a condition bad enough at its best. {To the froward} (\tois skoliois\). "To the crooked." Old word, also in strkjv@Luke:3:5; strkjv@Acts:2:40; strkjv@Phillipians:2:15|. Unfortunately there were slave-holders as there are employers today, like this group. The test of obedience comes precisely toward this group.

rwp@1Thessalonians:1:3 @{Remembering} (\mnˆmoneuontes\). Present active participle of old verb from adjective \mnˆm“n\ (mindful) and so to call to mind, to be mindful of, used either with the accusative as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| or the genitive as here. {Without ceasing} (\adialeipt“s\). Double compound adverb of the _Koin‚_ (Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo, papyri) from the verbal adjective \a-dia-leiptos\ (\a\ privative and \dia-leip“\, to leave off). In the N.T. alone by Paul and always connected with prayer. Milligan prefers to connect this adverb (amphibolous in position) with the preceding participle \poioumenoi\ rather than with \mnˆmoneuontes\ as Revised Version and Westcott and Hort rightly do. {Your work of faith} (\hum“n tou ergou tˆs piste“s\). Note article with both \ergou\ and \piste“s\ (correlation of the article, both abstract substantives). \Ergou\ is genitive case the object of \mnˆmoneuontes\ as is common with verbs of emotion (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 508f.), though the accusative \kopon\ occurs in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| according to common Greek idiom allowing either case. \Ergou\ is the general term for work or business, employment, task. Note two genitives with \ergou\. \Hum“n\ is the usual possessive genitive, {your work}, while \tˆs piste“s\ is the descriptive genitive, marked by, characterized by, faith, "the activity that faith inspires" (Frame). It is interesting to note this sharp conjunction of these two words by Paul. We are justified by faith, but faith produces works (Romans:6-8|) as the Baptist taught and as Jesus taught and as James does in strkjv@James:2|. {Labour of love} (\tou kopou tˆs agapˆs\). Note article with both substantives. Here again \tou kopou\ is the genitive the object of \mnˆmoneuontes\ while \tˆs agapˆs\ is the descriptive genitive characterizing the "labour" or "toil" more exactly. \Kopos\ is from \kopt“\, to cut, to lash, to beat the bread, to toil. In strkjv@Revelation:14:13| the distinction is drawn between \kopou\ (toil) from which the saints rest and \erga\ (works, activities) which follow with them into heaven. Songs:here it is the labour that love prompts, assuming gladly the toil. \Agapˆ\ is one of the great words of the N.T. (Milligan) and no certain example has yet been found in the early papyri or the inscriptions. It occurs in the Septuagint in the higher sense as with the sensuous associations. The Epistle of Aristeas calls love (\agapˆ\) God's gift and Philo uses \agapˆ\ in describing love for God. "When Christianity first began to think and speak in Greek, it took up \agapˆ\ and its group of terms more freely, investing them with the new glow with which the N.T. writings make us familiar, a content which is invariably religious" (Moffatt, _Love in the New Testament_, p. 40). The New Testament never uses the word \er“s\ (lust). {Patience of hope} (\tˆs hupomonˆs tˆs elpidos\). Note the two articles again and the descriptive genitive \tˆs elpidos\. It is patience marked by hope, "the endurance inspired by hope" (Frame), yes, and sustained by hope in spite of delays and set-backs. \Hupomonˆ\ is an old word (\hupo, men“\, to remain under), but it "has come like \agapˆ\ to be closely associated with a distinctively Christian virtue" (Milligan). The same order as here (\ergou, kopos, hupomonˆ\) appears in strkjv@Revelation:2:2| and Lightfoot considers it" an ascending scale as practical proofs of self-sacrifice." The church in Thessalonica was not old, but already they were called upon to exercise the sanctifying grace of hope (Denney). {In our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tou Kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). The objective genitive with \elpidos\ (hope) and so translated by "in" here (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 499f.). Jesus is the object of this hope, the hope of his second coming which is still open to us. Note "Lord Jesus Christ" as in verse 1|. {Before our God and Father} (\emprosthen tou theou kai patros hˆm“n\). The one article with both substantives precisely as in strkjv@Galatians:1:4|, not "before God and our Father," both article and possessive genitive going with both substantives as in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11; strkjv@Titus:2:13| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 785f.). The phrase is probably connected with \elpidos\. \Emprosthen\ in the N.T. occurs only of place, but it is common in the papyri of time. The picture here is the day of judgment when all shall appear before God.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:2 @{But having suffered before} (\alla propathontes\). Strong adversative \alla\, antithesis to \kenˆ\. Appeal to his personal experiences in Thessalonica known to them ({as ye know}, \kath“s oidate\). Second aorist active participle of \propasch“\, old compound verb, but here alone in the N.T. The force of \pro-\ (before) is carried over to the next verb. The participle may be regarded as temporal (Ellicott) or concessive (Moffatt). {And been shamefully entreated in Philippi} (\kai hubristhentes en Philippois\). First aorist passive participle of \hubriz“\, old verb, to treat insolently. "More than the bodily suffering it was the personal indignity that had been offered to him as a Roman citizen" (Milligan), for which account see strkjv@Acts:16:16-40|, an interesting example of how Acts and the Epistles throw light on each other. Luke tells how Paul resented the treatment accorded to him as a Roman citizen and here Paul shows that the memory still rankled in his bosom. {We waxed bold in our God} (\eparrˆsiasametha en t“i the“i hˆm“n\). Ingressive first aorist middle of \parrˆsiazomai\, old deponent verb from \parrˆsia\ (full story, \pan-, rˆsia\). In his reply to Festus (Acts:26:26|) Paul uses \parrˆsiazomenos lal“\, {being bold I speak}, while here he has {we waxed bold to speak} (\eparrˆsiasametha lalˆsai\). The insult in Philippi did not close Paul's mouth, but had precisely the opposite effect "in our God." It was not wild fanaticism, but determined courage and confidence in God that spurred Paul to still greater boldness in Thessalonica, {unto you} (\pros humƒs\), be the consequences what they might, {the gospel of God in much conflict}, (\to euaggelion tou theou en poll“i ag“ni\). This figure of the athletic games (\ag“n\) may refer to outward conflict like strkjv@Phillipians:1:30| or inward anxiety (Colossians:2:1|). He had both in Thessalonica.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:17 @{Being bereaved of you} (\aporphanisthentes aph' hum“n\). First aorist passive participle of the rare compound verb (\aporphaniz“\, in Aeschylus, but nowhere else in N.T.). Literally, {being orphaned from you} (\aph' hum“n\, ablative case). Paul changes the figure again (\trophos\ or mother nurse in verse 7|, \nˆpios\ or babe in verse 7|, \patˆr\ or father in verse 11|) to {orphan} (\orphanos\). He refers to the period of separation from them, {for a short season} (\pros kairon h“ras\) for a season of an hour. This idiom only here in N.T., but \pros kairon\ in strkjv@Luke:8:13| and \pros h“ran\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:8|. But it has seemed long to Paul. Precisely how long he had been gone we do not know, some months at any rate. {In presence, not in heart} (\pros“p“i ou kardiƒi\). Locative case. \Pros“pon\, old word (\pros, ops\, in front of the eye, face) for face, look, person. Literally, {in face or person}. His heart was with them, though they no longer saw his face. Heart, originally \kardia\, is the inner man, the seat of the affections and purposes, not always in contrast with intellect (\nous\). "Out of sight, not out of mind" (Rutherford). {Endeavoured the more exceedingly} (\perissoter“s espoudasamen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \spoudaz“\, old word to hasten (from \spoudˆ, speud“\). {We became zealous}. Comparative adverb \perissoter“s\ from \perisson\, more abundantly than before being orphaned from you. {Your face} (\to pros“pon hum“n\). Cf. his {face} above. {With great desire} (\en pollˆi epithumiƒi\). {In much longing} (\epithumia\ from \epi\ and \thumos\, \epithume“\, to run after, to yearn after, whether good or bad).

rwp@1Timothy:5:18 @{Thou shalt not muzzle} (\ou phim“seis\). Prohibition by \ou\ and future (volitive) indicative of \phimo“\ (from \phimos\, muzzle), old word, quoted also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:9| as here from strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:4|, and for the same purpose, to show the preacher's right to pay for his work. See strkjv@1Corinthians:9:9| for \alo“nta\ ({when he treadeth out the corn}). {The labourer is worthy of his hire} (\axios ho ergatˆs tou misthou autou\). These words occur in precisely this form in strkjv@Luke:10:7|. It appears also in strkjv@Matthew:10:10| with \tˆs trophˆs\ (food) instead of \tou misthou\. In strkjv@1Corinthians:9:14| Paul has the sense of it and says: "so also the Lord ordained," clearly meaning that Jesus had so said. It only remains to tell whether Paul here is quoting an unwritten saying of Jesus as he did in strkjv@Acts:20:35| or even the Gospel of Luke or Q (the Logia of Jesus). There is no way to decide this question. If Luke wrote his Gospel before A.D. 62 as is quite possible and Acts by A.D. 63, he could refer to the Gospel. It is not clear whether Scripture is here meant to apply to this quotation from the Lord Jesus. For \ergatˆs\ (labourer) see strkjv@Phillipians:3:2|.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:16 @{Henceforth} (\apo tou nun\). From the time that we gained this view of Christ's death for us. {After the flesh} (\kata sarka\). According to the flesh, the fleshy way of looking at men. He, of course, knows men "in the flesh (\en tˆi sarki\), but Paul is not speaking of that. Worldly standards and distinctions of race, class, cut no figure now with Paul (Galatians:3:28|) as he looks at men from the standpoint of the Cross of Christ. {Even though we have known Christ after the flesh} (\ei kai egn“kamen kata sarka Christon\). Concessive clause (\ei kai\, if even or also) with perfect active indicative. Paul admits that he had once looked at Christ \kata sarka\, but now no longer does it. Obviously he uses \kata sarka\ in precisely the same sense that he did in verse 15| about men. He had before his conversion known Christ \kata sarka\, according to the standards of the men of his time, the Sanhedrin and other Jewish leaders. He had led the persecution against Jesus till Jesus challenged and stopped him (Acts:9:4|). That event turned Paul clean round and he no longer knows Christ in the old way \kata sarka\. Paul may or may not have seen Jesus in the flesh before his death, but he says absolutely nothing on that point here.

rwp@2Corinthians:7:5 @{When we had come} (\elthont“n hˆm“n\). Genitive absolute with second aorist active participle of \erchomai\. Paul now returns to the incident mentioned in strkjv@2:12| before the long digression on the glory of the ministry. {Had no relief} (\oudemian eschˆken anesin\). Perfect active indicative precisely as in strkjv@2:13| which see, "has had no relief" (dramatic perfect). {Afflicted} (\thlibomenoi\). Present passive participle of \thlib“\ as in strkjv@4:8|, but with anacoluthon, for the nominative case agrees not with the genitive \hˆm“n\ nor with the accusative \hˆmas\ in verse 6|. It is used as if a principal verb as in strkjv@9:11; strkjv@11:6; strkjv@Romans:12:16| (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 182; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1132-35). {Without were fightings} (\ex“then machai\). Asyndeton and no copula, a parenthesis also in structure. Perhaps pagan adversaries in Macedonia (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:32|). {Within were fears} (\es“then phoboi\). Same construction. "Mental perturbations" (Augustine) as in strkjv@11:28|.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:11 @{What we are} (\hoioi esmen\). Rather, "what sort" (\hoioi\), not \ho\ (what) nor \hoi\ (who). Literary plural. \Hoios\ is qualitative just as \toioutoi\ (such). Paul's quality in his letters when absent (\apontes\) and in his deeds when present (\parontes\) is precisely the same.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ ANACHRONISMS It used to be said that it was impossible for II Peter to have been written in the first century, because it had the atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that argument. In strkjv@2Peter:3:8| occurs the quotation of strkjv@Psalms:90:4| about the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to have such a swing. Peter's use of it suits the first century, not the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in II Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul's troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. "Every feature in the description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in the apostolic age" (Bigg).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Sim“n Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Syme“n\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Sim“n\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan“\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \timˆ\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \timˆ\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \timˆ\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hˆmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \tˆi hˆm“n\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosunˆi\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosunˆ\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \s“tˆros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patˆr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@2Peter:2:4 @{For if God spared not} (\ei gar ho theos ouk epheisato\). First instance (\gar\) of certain doom, that of the fallen angels. Condition of the first class precisely like that in strkjv@Romans:11:21| save that here the normal apodosis (\hum“n ou pheisetai\) is not expressed as there, but is simply implied in verse 9| by \oiden kurios ruesthai\ (the Lord knows how to deliver) after the parenthesis in verse 8|. {Angels when they sinned} (\aggel“n hamartˆsant“n\). Genitive case after \epheisato\ (first aorist middle indicative of \pheidomai\) and anarthrous (so more emphatic, even angels), first aorist active participle of \hamartan“\, "having sinned." {Cast them down to hell} (\tartar“sas\). First aorist active participle of \tartaro“\, late word (from \tartaros\, old word in Homer, Pindar, LXX strkjv@Job:40:15; strkjv@41:23|, Philo, inscriptions, the dark and doleful abode of the wicked dead like the Gehenna of the Jews), found here alone save in a scholion on Homer. \Tartaros\ occurs in Enoch strkjv@20:2 as the place of punishment of the fallen angels, while Gehenna is for apostate Jews. {Committed} (\pared“ken\). First aorist active indicative of \paradid“mi\, the very form solemnly used by Paul in strkjv@Romans:1:21,26,28|. {To pits of darkness} (\seirois zophou\). \Zophos\ (kin to \gnophos, nephos\) is an old word, blackness, gloom of the nether world in Homer, in N.T. only here, verse 17; strkjv@Jude:1:13; strkjv@Hebrews:12:18|. The MSS. vary between \seirais\ (\seira\, chain or rope) and \seirois\ (\seiros\, old word for pit, underground granary). \Seirois\ is right (Aleph A B C), dative case of destination. {To be reserved unto judgment} (\eis krisin tˆroumenous\). Present (linear action) passive participle of \tˆre“\. "Kept for judgment." Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:4|. Aleph A have \kolazomenous tˆrein\ as in verse 9|. Note \krisis\ (act of judgment).

rwp@2Peter:2:14 @{Of adultery} (\moichalidos\). Rather, "of an adulteress," like strkjv@James:4:4|. Vivid picture of a man who cannot see a woman without lascivious thoughts toward her (Mayor). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:28|. {That cannot cease} (\akatapastous\). Reading of A B in place of \akatapaustous\ (alpha privative and verbal of \katapau“\, to cease). "Unable to stop." This a late verbal, only here in N.T. It is probable that \akatapastous\ is merely a misspelling of \akatapaustous\. {From sin} (\hamartias\). Ablative case as in strkjv@1Peter:4:1| (\hamartias\). Insatiable lust. {Enticing} (\deleazontes\). Present active participle of \deleaz“\, to catch by bait as in verse 18; strkjv@James:1:14|. {Unsteadfast} (\astˆriktous\). Late verbal adjective (alpha privative and \stˆriz“\), in Longinus and Vettius Valens, here alone in N.T. {Exercised} (\gegumnasmenˆn\). Perfect passive predicate participle with \echontes\, from \gumnaz“\ precisely as in strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|. Rhetorical metaphor from the gymnasium. {In covetousness} (\pleonexias\). Genitive case after the participle. {Children of cursing} (\kataras tekna\). Hebraism like \tekna hupakoˆs\ in strkjv@1Peter:1:14| = accursed (\kataratoi\).

rwp@2Peter:3:4 @{Where is the promise of his coming?} (\pou estin hˆ epaggelia tˆs parousias autou;\). This is the only sample of the questions raised by these mockers. Peter had mentioned this subject of the \parousia\ in strkjv@1:16|. Now he faces it squarely. Peter, like Paul (1Thessalonians:5:1f.; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1f.|), preached about the second coming (1:16; strkjv@Acts:3:20f.|), as Jesus himself did repeatedly (Matthew:24:34|) and as the angels promised at the Ascension (Acts:1:11|). Both Jesus and Paul (2Thessalonians:2:1f.|) were misunderstood on the subject of the time and the parables of Jesus urged readiness and forbade setting dates for his coming, though his language in strkjv@Matthew:24:34| probably led some to believe that he would certainly come while they were alive. {From the day that} (\aph' hˆs\). "From which day." See strkjv@Luke:7:45|. {Fell asleep} (\ekoimˆthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \koima“\, old verb, to put sleep, classic euphemism for death (John:11:11|) like our cemetery (sleeping-place). {Continue} (\diamenei\). Present active indicative of \diamen“\, to remain through (Luke:1:22|). _In statu quo_. {As they were} (\hout“s\). "Thus." {From the beginning of creation} (\ap' archˆs ktise“s\). Precisely so in strkjv@Mark:10:6|, which see.

rwp@2Peter:3:8 @{Forget not this one thing} (\hen touto mˆ lanthanet“ humas\). Rather, "let not this one thing escape you." For \lanthanet“\ (present active imperative of \lanthan“\) see verse 5|. The "one thing" (\hen\) is explained by the \hoti\ (that) clause following. Peter applies the language of strkjv@Psalms:90:4| about the eternity of God and shortness of human life to "the impatience of human expectations" (Bigg) about the second coming of Christ. "The day of judgment is at hand (1Peter:4:7|). It may come tomorrow; but what is tomorrow? What does God mean by a day? It may be a thousand years" (Bigg). Precisely the same argument applies to those who argue for a literal interpretation of the thousand years in strkjv@Revelation:20:4-6|. It may be a day or a day may be a thousand years. God's clock (\para kuri“i\, beside the Lord) does not run by our timepieces. The scoffers scoff ignorantly.

rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ SECOND THESSALONIANS FROM CORINTH A.D. 50 OR 51 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION It is plain that First Thessalonians did not settle all the difficulties in Thessalonica. With some there was precisely the opposite result. There was some opposition to Paul's authority and even defiance. Songs:Paul repeats his "command" for discipline (2Thessalonians:3:6|) as he had done when with them (3:10|). He makes this Epistle a test of obedience (3:14|) and finds it necessary to warn the Thessalonians against the zeal of some deceivers who even invent epistles in Paul's name to carry their point in the church (2:1f.|), an early instance of pseudepigraphic "Pauline" epistles, but not for a "pious" purpose. Paul's keen resentment against the practise should make us slow to accept the pseudepigraphic theory about other Pauline Epistles. He calls attention to his own signature at the close of each genuine letter. As a rule he dictated the epistle, but signed it with his own hand (3:17|). Paul writes to calm excitement (Ellicott) and to make it plain that he had not said that the Second Coming was to be right away.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:8 @{For nought} (\d“rean\). Adverbial accusative, as a gift, gift-wise (\d“rea\, gift, from \did“mi\). Same claim made to the Corinthians (2Corinthians:11:7|), old word, in LXX, and papyri. He lodged with Jason, but did not receive his meals _gratis_, for he paid for them. Apparently he received no invitations to meals. Paul had to make his financial independence clear to avoid false charges which were made in spite of all his efforts. To eat bread is merely a Hebraism for eat (verse 10|). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| for labour and travail, and night and day (\nuktos kai hˆmeras\, genitive of time, by night and by day). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9| for rest of the verse in precisely the same words.

rwp@2Timothy:1:2 @{Beloved} (\agapˆtoi\). Instead of \gnˆsi“i\ (genuine) in strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. He had already called Timothy \agapˆton\ (verbal adjective of \agapa“\) in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:17|, an incidental and strong proof that it is Paul who is writing here. This argument applies to each of the Pastorals for Paul is known by other sources (Acts and previous Pauline Epistles) to sustain precisely the affectionate relation toward Timothy and Titus shown in the Pastorals.

rwp@3John:1:6 @{Before the church} (\en“pion ekklˆsias\). Public meeting as the anarthrous use of \ekklˆsia\ indicates, like \en ekklˆsiƒi\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19,35|. {Thou wilt do well} (\kal“s poiˆseis\). Future active of \poie“\ with adverb \kal“s\, a common polite phrase in letters (papyri) like our "please." See also strkjv@Acts:10:33; strkjv@James:2:19; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:37f.; strkjv@Phillipians:4:14; strkjv@2Peter:1:19|. {To set forward on their journey} (\propempsas\). First aorist active participle (simultaneous action) of \propemp“\, to send forward, "sending forward," old word, in N.T. in strkjv@Acts:15:3; strkjv@20:38; strkjv@21:5; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:6,11; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:16; strkjv@Romans:15:24; strkjv@Titus:3:13|. {Worthily of God} (\axi“s tou theou\). Precisely this phrase in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:12| and the genitive with \axi“s\ also in strkjv@Romans:16:2; strkjv@Phillipians:1:27; strkjv@Colossians:1:10; strkjv@Ephesians:4:1|. See strkjv@John:13:20| for Christ's words on the subject. "Since they are God's representatives, treat them as you would God" (Holtzmann). From Homer's time (_Od_. XV. 74) it was customary to speed the parting guest, sometimes accompanying him, sometimes providing money and food. Rabbis were so escorted and Paul alludes to the same gracious custom in strkjv@Romans:15:24; strkjv@Titus:3:13|.

rwp@Info_Acts @ SOURCES OF THE ACTS Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for this great history as he did for the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|). In fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third volume or not. Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the "we" sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul's own notes or suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapters 8 to 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he finished the Book. This would include Paul's sermons and addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do, that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence of that for each address differs from the others and suits precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes of his addresses. Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues in his _Composition and Date of Acts_ (1916) that Luke used an Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case for such a single document. Luke may have had several such documents besides access to others familiar with the early days of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited for two weeks in Jerusalem (Galatians:1:18|) besides other points of contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts:15| and strkjv@Galatians:2|). There was also Barnabas who was early Paul's friend (Acts:9:27|) and who knew the beginnings as few did (Acts:4:36f.|). Besides many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy (Acts:21:8f.|). But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same style all through that appears in the "we" sections where the writer is confessedly a companion of Paul. No other companion of Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a physician and no author has the external evidence from early writers.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTS It is not easy to say in a word precisely the object of Luke in writing this book. It is not the Acts of all the apostles. Outside of Peter and John little is told of any of them after chapter 3. And all the acts of Peter and John are not given for Peter disappears from the narrative after chapter 15, though he has been the central figure through chapter 11. Paul is not one of the twelve apostles, but Luke follows Paul's career mainly after chapter 8. Stephen and Barnabas come in also. Still (_St. Paul on Trial_, 1923) argues that Luke meant the book as an apology to be used in Paul's trial at Rome or at any rate to put Paul in the right light with the Jews in Rome. Hence the full account of Paul's series of defences in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome. There may be an element of truth in this idea, but it clearly does not cover the whole purpose of Luke. Others hold that Luke had a dramatic plan to get Paul to Rome as the climax of his campaign to win the Roman Empire to Christ. The book is not a history of all early Christianity. Peter and Paul dominate the atmosphere of the book with Paul as the great hero of Luke. But one can easily see that the work is done with consummate skill. The author is a man of culture, of Christian grace, of literary power. The book pulses with life today.

rwp@Acts:1:12 @{Olivet} (\Elai“nos\). Genitive singular. Vulgate _Olivetum_. Made like \ampel“n\. Here only in the N.T., usually \to oros t“n Elai“n\ (the Mount of Olives), though some MSS. have Olivet in strkjv@Luke:19:29; strkjv@21:37|. Josephus (_Ant_. VII. 9, 2) has it also and the papyri (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 170). {A sabbath day's journey off} (\Sabbatou ech“n hodon\). Luke only says here that Olivet is a Sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem, not that Jesus was precisely that distance when he ascended. In the Gospel Luke (24:50|) states that Jesus led them "over against" (\he“s pros\) Bethany (about two miles or fifteen furlongs). The top of Olivet is six furlongs or three-fourths of a mile. The Greek idiom here is "having a journey of a Sabbath" after "which is nigh unto Jerusalem" (\ho estin eggus Ierousalˆm\), note the periphrastic construction. Why Luke mentions this item for Gentile readers in this form is not known, unless it was in his Jewish source. See strkjv@Exodus:16:29; strkjv@Numbers:35:5; strkjv@Joshua:3:4|. But it does not contradict what he says in strkjv@Luke:24:50|, where he does not say that Jesus led them all the way to Bethany.

rwp@Acts:2:4 @{With other tongues} (\heterais gl“ssais\). Other than their native tongues. Each one began to speak in a language that he had not acquired and yet it was a real language and understood by those from various lands familiar with them. It was not jargon, but intelligible language. Jesus had said that the gospel was to go to all the nations and here the various tongues of earth were spoken. One might conclude that this was the way in which the message was to be carried to the nations, but future developments disprove it. This is a third miracle (the sound, the tongues like fire, the untaught languages). There is no blinking the fact that Luke so pictures them. One need not be surprised if this occasion marks the fulfilment of the Promise of the Father. But one is not to confound these miraculous signs with the Holy Spirit. They are merely proof that he has come to carry on the work of his dispensation. The gift of tongues came also on the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts:10:44-47; strkjv@11:15-17|), the disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts:19:6|), the disciples at Corinth (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). It is possible that the gift appeared also at Samaria (Acts:8:18|). But it was not a general or a permanent gift. Paul explains in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:22| that "tongues" were a sign to unbelievers and were not to be exercised unless one was present who understood them and could translate them. This restriction disposes at once of the modern so-called tongues which are nothing but jargon and hysteria. It so happened that here on this occasion at Pentecost there were Jews from all parts of the world, so that some one would understand one tongue and some another without an interpreter such as was needed at Corinth. The experience is identical in all four instances and they are not for edification or instruction, but for adoration and wonder and worship. {As the Spirit gave them utterance} (\kath“s to pneuma edidou apophtheggesthai autois\). This is precisely what Paul claims in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:10,28|, but all the same without an interpreter the gift was not to be exercised (1Corinthians:14:6-19|). Paul had the gift of tongues, but refused to exercise it except as it would be understood. Note the imperfect tense here (\edidou\). Perhaps they did not all speak at once, but one after another. \Apophtheggesthai\ is a late verb (LXX of prophesying, papyri). Lucian uses it of the ring of a vessel when it strikes a reef. It is used of eager, elevated, impassioned utterance. In the N.T. only here, verse 14; strkjv@26:25|. \Apophthegm\ is from this verb.

rwp@Acts:2:6 @{When this sound was heard} (\genomenˆs tˆs ph“nˆs tautˆs\). Genitive absolute with aorist middle participle. Note \ph“nˆ\ this time, not \ˆcho\ as in verse 1|. \Ph“nˆ\ originally meant sound as of the wind (John:3:8|) or an instrument (1Corinthians:14:7,8,10|), then voice of men. The meaning seems to be that the excited "other tongues" of verse 4| were so loud that the noise drew the crowd together. The house where the 120 were may have been (Hackett) on one of the avenues leading to the temple. {Were confounded} (\sunechuthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \sunche“\ or \sunchun“\, to pour together precisely like the Latin _confundo_, to confound. The Vulgate has it _mente confusa est_. It is an old verb, but in the N.T. only in Acts five times (2:6; strkjv@9:22; strkjv@19:32; strkjv@21:27,31|). {In his own language} (\tˆi idiƒi dialekt“i\). Locative case. Each one could understand his own language when he heard that. Every one that came heard somebody speaking in his native tongue.

rwp@Acts:2:17 @{In the last days} (\en tais eschatais hˆmerais\). Joel does not have precisely these words, but he defines "those days" as being "the day of the Lord" (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:2:2; strkjv@Micah:4:1|). {I will pour forth} (\ekche“\). Future active indicative of \ekche“\. This future like \edomai\ and \piomai\ is without tense sign, probably like the present in the futuristic sense (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 354). Westcott and Hort put a different accent on the future, but the old Greek had no accent. The old Greek had \ekcheus“\. This verb means to pour out. {Of my Spirit} (\apo tou pneumatos\). This use of \apo\ (of) is either because of the variety in the manifestations of the Spirit (1Corinthians:12|) or because the Spirit in his entirety remains with God (Holtzmann, Wendt). But the Hebrew has it: "I will pour out my Spirit" without the partitive idea in the LXX. {And your daughters} (\kai hai thugateres h–m“n\). Anna is called a prophetess in strkjv@Luke:2:36| and the daughters of Philip prophesy (Acts:21:9|) and verse 18| (handmaidens). See also strkjv@1Corinthians:11:5| (\prophˆtousa\). {Visions} (\horaseis\). Late word for the more common \horama\, both from \hora“\, to see. In strkjv@Revelation:4:3| it means appearance, but in strkjv@Revelation:9:17| as here an ecstatic revelation or vision. {Dream dreams} (\enupniois enupniasthˆsontai\). Shall dream with (instrumental case) dreams. First future passive of \enupniaz“\ from \enupnios\ (\en\ and \hupnos\, in sleep), a common late word. Only here in the N.T. (this from Joel as all these verses 17-21| are) and strkjv@Jude:1:8|. {Yea and} (\kai ge\). Intensive particle \ge\ added to \kai\ (and), an emphatic addition (=Hebrew _vegam_). {Servants} (\doulous\), {handmaidens} (\doulas\). Slaves, actual slaves of men. The humblest classes will receive the Spirit of God (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26-31|). But the word "prophesy" here is not in the LXX (or the Hebrew).

rwp@Acts:2:45 @{Sold} (\epipraskon\). Imperfect active, a habit or custom from time to time. Old and common verb, \piprask“\. {Parted} (\diemerizon\). Imperfect again of \diameriz“\, old verb for dividing or distributing between (\dia\) people. {According as any man had need} (\kathoti an tis chreian eichen\). Regular Greek idiom for comparative clause with \an\ and imperfect indicative corresponding precisely with the three preceding imperfects (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 967).

rwp@Acts:5:29 @{We must} (\dei\). Moral necessity left them no choice. They stood precisely where Peter and John were when before the Sanhedrin before (Acts:4:20|). {Obey} (\peitharchein\). Old verb from \peithomai\ and \archˆ\, to obey a ruler. Only by Luke and Paul in the N.T.

rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta hout“s echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:10:15 @{Make not thou common} (\su mˆ koinou\). Note emphatic position of \su\ (thou). Do thou stop making common what God cleansed (\ekatharisen\). The idiom of \mˆ\ with the present active imperative \koinou\ means precisely this. Peter had just called "common" what God had invited him to slay and eat.

rwp@Acts:10:16 @{Thrice} (\epitris\). For three times. Peter remained unconvinced even by the prohibition of God. Here is a striking illustration of obstinacy on the part of one who acknowledges the voice of God to him when the command of the Lord crosses one's preferences and prejudices. There are abundant examples today of precisely this thing. In a real sense Peter was maintaining a pose of piety beyond the will of the Lord. Peter was defiling what God had cleansed. {Was received up} (\anelˆmphthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \analamban“\, to take up. The word used of the Ascension (1:22|).

rwp@Acts:10:25 @{That Peter entered} (\tou eiselthein ton Petron\). This is a difficult construction, for the subject of \egeneto\ (it happened) has to be the articular genitive infinitive \tou eiselthein\ with the accusative of general reference \ton Petron\. Most commentators consider it inexplicable. It is probably an extension of the ordinary articular infinitive under the influence of the Hebrew infinitive construct without regard to the case, regarding it as a fixed case form and so using it as nominative. Precisely this construction of \tou\ and the infinitive as the subject of a verb occurs in the LXX (2Chronicles:6:7|, etc.). See Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1067f. for full discussion of this obvious Hebraism. Somewhat similar examples appear in strkjv@Acts:20:3; strkjv@27:1|. But the Codex Bezae avoids this awkward idiom by the genitive absolute (\proseggizontos tou Petrou\) and some additional details (one of the servants ran forward and announced that he was come). {Worshipped him} (\prosekunˆsen\). "Cornelius was not an idolator and would not have honoured Peter as a god" (Furneaux). The word probably means here reverence like old English usage (Wycliff) and not actual worship, though Peter took it that way (verse 26|). Jesus accepted such worship (Matthew:8:2; strkjv@Luke:5:8| by Peter).

rwp@Acts:10:35 @{Acceptable to him} (\dektos aut“i\). Verbal adjective from \dechomai\. _Acceptabilis_. That is to say, a Gentile would not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Evidently Peter had not before perceived this fact. On the great Day of Pentecost when he spoke of the promise "to all those afar off" (2:39|) Peter understood that they must first become Jews and then Christians. The new idea that now makes a revolution in Peter's outlook is precisely this that Christ can and will save Gentiles like this Cornelius group without their becoming Jews at all.

rwp@Acts:11:13 @{Standing and saying} (\stathenta kai eiponta\). More precisely, "stand and say" (punctiliar act, first aorist passive and second aorist active participles). {Fetch Simon} (\metapempsai Sim“na\). First aorist middle imperative. Third time mentioned (10:5,22; strkjv@11:13|). Perhaps Peter is anxious to make it plain that he did not go of his own initiative into the house of Cornelius. He went under God's direct orders.

rwp@Acts:11:19 @{They therefore that were scattered abroad} (\hoi men oun diasparentes\). Precisely the same words used in strkjv@8:4| about those scattered by Saul (which see) and a direct reference to it is made by the next words, "upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen" (\apo tˆs thlipse“s tˆs genomenˆs epi Stephan“i\). As a result of (\apo\), in the case of (\epi\) Stephen. From that event Luke followed Saul through his conversion and back to Jerusalem and to Tarsus. Then he showed the activity of Peter outside of Jerusalem as a result of the cessation of the persecution from the conversion of Saul with the Gentile Pentecost in Caesarea and the outcome in Jerusalem. Now Luke starts over again from the same persecution by Saul and runs a new line of events up to Antioch parallel to the other, probably partly following. {Except to Jews only} (\ei mˆ monon Ioudaiois\). Clearly these disciples did not know anything about the events in Caesarea and at first their flight preceded that time. But it was a wonderful episode, the eager and loyal preaching of the fleeing disciples. The culmination in Antioch was probably after the report of Peter about Caesarea. This Antioch by the Orontes was founded 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator and was one of five cities so named by the Seleucides. It became the metropolis of Syria though the Arabs held Damascus first. Antioch ranked next to Rome and Alexandria in size, wealth, power, and vice. There were many Jews in the cosmopolitan population of half a million. It was destined to supplant Jerusalem as the centre of Christian activity.

rwp@Acts:12:10 @{When they were past} (\dielthontes\). Second aorist active participle of \dierchomai\, transitive with \dia\ in composition. {The first and the second ward} (\pr“tˆn phulakˆn kai deuteran\). It is not clear to what this language refers. Some take it to mean single soldiers, using \phulakˆn\ in the sense of a guard (one before the door, one at the iron gate). But it seems hardly likely that the two soldiers with whom Peter had been stationed are meant. Probably the "first ward" means the two soldiers of the quaternion stationed by the door and the second ward some other soldiers, not part of the sixteen, further on in the prison by the iron gate. However understood, the difficulties of escape are made plain. {Unto the iron gate that leadeth into the city} (\epi tˆn pulˆn tˆn sidˆrƒn tˆn pherousan eis tˆn polin\). Note the triple use of the article (the gate the iron one the one leading into the city). For this resumptive use of the article see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 762, 764. This iron gate may have opened from a court out into the street and effectually barred escape. {Opened to them} (\ˆnoigˆ autois\). Second aorist passive indicative of \anoig“\, the usual later form though \ˆnoichthˆ\ (first aorist passive) occurs also, was opened. {Of its own accord} (\automatˆ\). Old compound adjective (\autos\, self, obsolete \ma“\, to desire eagerly, feminine form though masculine \automatos\ also used as feminine). In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:4:28|. It was a strange experience for Peter. The Codex Bezae adds here "went down the seven steps" (\katebˆsan tous hepta bathmous\), an interesting detail that adds to the picture. {One street} (\rhumˆn mian\). The angel saw Peter through one of the narrow streets and then left him. We have no means of knowing precisely the location of the prison in the city. On "departed" (\apestˆ\) see on verse ¯7|.

rwp@Acts:13:52 @{And the disciples} (\hoi te\ or \hoi de mathˆtai\). The Gentile Christians in Antioch in Pisidia. Persecution had precisely the opposite effect to the intention of the Jews for they "were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit" (\eplˆrounto charas kai pneumatos hagiou\). Imperfect passive, they kept on being filled. It had been so before (Acts:4:31; strkjv@8:4; strkjv@9:31; strkjv@12:24|). The blood of the martyrs is still the seed of the church.

rwp@Acts:15:14 @{Hearken unto me} (\akousate mou\). Usual appeal for attention. James was termed James the Just and was considered a representative of the Hebraic as opposed to the Hellenistic wing of the Jewish Christians (Acts:6:1|). The Judaizers had doubtless counted on him as a champion of their view and did later wrongfully make use of his name against Peter at Antioch (Galatians:2:12|). There was instant attention when James began to speak. {Symeon} (\Sume“n\). The Aramaic form of Simon as in strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. This little touch would show his affinities with the Jewish Christians (not the Judaizers). This Aramaic form is used also in strkjv@Luke:2:25,34| of the old prophet in the temple. Possibly both forms (Symeon, Aramaic, and Simon, Greek) were current in Jerusalem. {How} (\kath“s\). Strictly, "according as," here like \hos\ in indirect discourse somewhat like the epexegetic or explanatory use in strkjv@3John:1:3|. {First} (\pr“ton\). Told by Peter in verse 7|. James notes, as Peter did, that this experience of Barnabas and Paul is not the beginning of work among the Gentiles. {Did visit} (\epeskepsato\). First aorist middle indicative of \episkeptomai\, old verb to look upon, to look after, provide for. This same verb occurs in strkjv@James:1:27| and is one of various points of similarity between this speech of James in Acts and the Epistle of James as shown by Mayor in his _Commentary on James_. Somehow Luke may have obtained notes of these various addresses. {To take from the Gentiles a people for his name} (\labein ex ethn“n laon t“i onomati autou\). Bengel calls this _egregium paradoxon_, a chosen people (\laon\) out of the Gentiles (\ethn“n\). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God's purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give. This new Israel from among the Gentiles is one of Paul's great doctrines as set forth in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|. Note the use of God's "name" here for "the Israel of God" (Galatians:6:16|).

rwp@Acts:15:25 @{It seemed good unto us} (\edoxen hˆmin\). See statement by Luke in verse 22|, and now this definite decision is in the epistle itself. It is repeated in verse 28|. {Having come to one accord} (\genomenois homothumadon\). On this adverb, common in Acts, see on ¯1:14|. But \genomenois\ clearly means that the final unity was the result of the Conference (private and public talks). The Judaizers are here brushed to one side as the defeated disturbers that they really were who had lacked the courage to vote against the majority. {To choose out men and send them} (\eklexamenois andras pempsai\ A B L, though Aleph C D read \eklexamenous\ as in verse 22|). Precisely the same idiom as in verse 22|, "having chosen out to send." {With our beloved Barnabas and Paul} (\sun tois agapˆtois hˆm“n Barnabƒi kai Paul“i\). The verbal adjective \agapˆtois\ (common in the N.T.) definitely sets the seal of warm approval on Barnabas and Paul. Paul (Galatians:2:9|) confirms this by his statement concerning the right hand of fellowship given.

rwp@Acts:17:3 @{Opening and alleging} (\dianoig“n kai paratithemenos\). Opening the Scriptures, Luke means, as made plain by the mission and message of Jesus, the same word (\dianoig“\) used by him of the interpretation of the Scriptures by Jesus (Luke:24:32|) and of the opening of the mind of the disciples also by Jesus (Luke:24:45|) and of the opening of Lydia's heart by the Lord (16:14|). One cannot refrain from saying that such exposition of the Scriptures as Jesus and Paul gave would lead to more opening of mind and heart. Paul was not only "expounding" the Scriptures, he was also "propounding" (the old meaning of "allege") his doctrine or setting forth alongside the Scriptures (\para-tithemenos\), quoting the Scripture to prove his contention which was made in much conflict (1Thessalonians:2:2|), probably in the midst of heated discussion by the opposing rabbis who were anything but convinced by Paul's powerful arguments, for the Cross was a stumbling-block to the Jews (1Corinthians:1:23|). {That it behoved the Christ to suffer} (\hoti ton Christon edei pathein\). The second aorist active infinitive is the subject of \edei\ with \ton Christon\, the accusative of general reference. This is Paul's major premise in his argument from the Scriptures about the Messiah, the necessity of his sufferings according to the Scriptures, the very argument made by the Risen Jesus to the two on the way to Emmaus (Luke:24:25-27|). The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was a passage in point that the rabbis had overlooked. Peter made the same point in strkjv@Acts:3:18| and Paul again in strkjv@Acts:26:23|. The minor premise is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. {To rise again from the dead} (\anastˆnai ek nekr“n\). This second aorist active infinitive \anastˆnai\ is also the subject of \edei\. The actual resurrection of Jesus was also a necessity as Paul says he preached to them (1Thessalonians:4:14|) and argued always from Scripture (1Corinthians:15:3-4|) and from his own experience (Acts:9:22; strkjv@22:7; strkjv@26:8,14; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:8|). {This Jesus is the Christ} (\houtos estin ho Christos, ho Iˆsous\). More precisely, "This is the Messiah, viz., Jesus whom I am proclaiming unto you." This is the conclusion of Paul's line of argument and it is logical and overwhelming. It is his method everywhere as in Damascus, in Antioch in Pisidia, here, in Corinth. He spoke as an eye-witness.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai t“n Epikouri“n kai St“ik“n philosoph“n suneballon aut“i\). Imperfect active of \sunball“\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gn“thi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg“\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zen“n daimoni“n dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei S“kratˆs, kaina daimonia eispher“n\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Iˆsoun kai tˆn anastasin euˆggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz“\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@Acts:21:37 @{May I say something unto thee?} (\Ei exestin moi eipein ti pros se?\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. The calm self-control of Paul in the presence of this mob is amazing. His courteous request to Lysias was in Greek to the chiliarch's amazement. {Dost thou know Greek?} (\Hellˆnisti gin“skeis?\). Old Greek adverb in \-i\ from \Hellˆniz“\, meaning "in Greek." "Do you know it in Greek?" In the N.T. only here and strkjv@John:19:20|. {Art thou not then the Egyptian?} (\Ouk ara su ei ho Aiguptios?\). Expects the answer _Yes_ and \ara\ argues the matter (therefore). The well-known (\ho\) Egyptian who had given the Romans so much trouble. {Stirred up to sedition} (\anastat“sas\). First aorist active participle of \anastato“\, a late verb from \anastatos\, outcast, and so to unsettle, to stir up, to excite, once known only in LXX and strkjv@Acts:17:6| (which see); strkjv@21:38; strkjv@Galatians:5:12|, but now found in several papyri examples with precisely this sense to upset. {Of the Assassins} (\t“n sikari“n\). Latin word _sicarius_, one who carried a short sword \sica\ under his cloak, a cutthroat. Josephus uses this very word for bands of robbers under this Egyptian (_War_ II. 17,6 and 13,5; _Ant_. XX. 8,10). Josephus says that there were 30,000 who gathered on the Mount of Olives to see the walls of Jerusalem fall down and not merely 4,000 as Lysias does here. But Lysias may refer to the group that were armed thus (banditti) the core of the mob of 30,000. Lysias at once saw by Paul's knowledge of Greek that he was not the famous Egyptian who led the Assassins and escaped himself when Felix attacked and slew the most of them.

rwp@Acts:22:2 @{He spake} (\proseph“nei\). Imperfect active, was speaking. See aorist active \proseph“nˆsen\ in strkjv@21:40|. {They were the more quiet} (\mƒllon pareschon hˆsuchian\). Literally, The more (\mƒllon\) they furnished or supplied (second aorist active indicative of \parech“\) quietness (\hˆsuchian\, old word, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:12; strkjv@1Timothy:2:11ff.|). Precisely this idiom occurs in Plutarch (_Cor_. 18) and the LXX (Job:34:29|). Knowling notes the fondness of Luke for words of silence (\sigˆ, siga“, hˆsuchaz“\) as in strkjv@Luke:14:4; strkjv@15:26; strkjv@Acts:11:18; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@15:12; strkjv@21:14,40|. It is a vivid picture of the sudden hush that swept over the vast mob under the spell of the Aramaic. They would have understood Paul's _Koin‚_ Greek, but they much preferred the Aramaic. It was a masterstroke.

rwp@Acts:22:17 @{When I had returned} (\moi hupostrepsanti\), {while I prayed} (\proseuchomenou mou\), {I fell} (\genesthai me\). Note dative \moi\ with \egeneto\ as in verse 6|, genitive \mou\ (genitive absolute with \proseuchomenou\), accusative of general reference \me\ with \genesthai\, and with no effort at uniformity, precisely as in strkjv@15:22,23| which see. The participle is especially liable to such examples of anacolutha (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 439).

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \gin“sk“\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg“ Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisai“n\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastase“s nekr“n krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

rwp@Acts:25:1 @{Having come into the province} (\epibas tˆi eparcheiƒi\). Second aorist active participle of \epibain“\, to set foot upon. Literally, "Having set foot upon his province." \Eparcheia\ is a late word for province, in N.T. only here and strkjv@23:34|. Judea was not strictly a province, but a department (Page) of the province of Syria which was under a _propraetor_ (\legatus Caesaris\) while Judea was under a _procurator_ (\epitropos\). {After three days} (\meta treis hˆmeras\). Songs:in strkjv@Acts:28:17| in Rome. That is on the third day, with a day of rest in between. Precisely the language used of the resurrection of Jesus "after three days" = "on the third day." Songs:by common usage then and now.

rwp@Acts:25:9 @{Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\thel“n tois Ioudaiois charin katathesthai\). Precisely the expression used of Felix by Luke in strkjv@24:27| which see. Festus, like Felix, falls a victim to fear of the Jews. {Before me} (\ep' emou\). Same use of \epi\ with the genitive as in strkjv@23:30; strkjv@24:19,21|. Festus, seeing that it was unjust to condemn Paul and yet disadvantageous to absolve him (Blass), now makes the very proposal to Paul that the rulers had made to him in Jerusalem (verse 3|). He added the words "\ep' emou\" (before me) as if to insure Paul of justice. If Festus was unwilling to give Paul justice in Caesarea where his regular court held forth, what assurance was there that Festus would give it to him at Jerusalem in the atmosphere of intense hostility to Paul? Only two years ago the mob, the Sanhedrin, the forty conspirators had tried to take his life in Jerusalem. Festus had no more courage to do right than Felix, however plausible his language might sound. Festus also, while wanting Paul to think that he would in Jerusalem "be judged of these things before me," in reality probably intended to turn Paul over to the Sanhedrin in order to please the Jews, probably with Festus present also to see that Paul received justice (\me presente\). Festus possibly was surprised to find that the charges were chiefly against Jewish law, though one was against Caesar. It was not a mere change of venue that Paul sensed, but the utter unwillingness of Festus to do his duty by him and his willingness to connive at Jewish vengeance on Paul. Paul had faced the mob and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, two years of trickery at the hands of Felix in Caesarea, and now he is confronted by the bland chicanery of Festus. It is too much, the last straw.

rwp@Acts:26:28 @{With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian} (\en olig“i me peitheis Christianon poiˆsai\). The Authorized rendering is impossible: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." \En olig“i\ does not mean "almost." That would require \oligou, par' oligon\, or \dei oligou\. It is not clear, however, precisely what \en oligoi\ does mean. It may refer to time (in little time) or a short cut, but that does not suit well \en megal“i\ in verse 29|. Tyndale and Crammer rendered it "somewhat" (in small measure or degree). There are, alas, many "somewhat" Christians. Most likely the idea is "in (or with) small effort you are trying to persuade (\peitheis\, conative present active indicative) me in order to make me a Christian." This takes the infinitive \poiˆsai\ to be purpose (Page renders it by "so as") and thus avoids trying to make \poiˆsai\ like \genesthai\ (become). The aorist is punctiliar action for single act, not "perfect." The tone of Agrippa is ironical, but not unpleasant. He pushes it aside with a shrug of the shoulders. The use of "Christian" is natural here as in the other two instances (11:26; strkjv@1Peter:4:16|).

rwp@Acts:27:8 @{Coasting along} (\paralegomenoi\). Present middle participle of \paraleg“\, to lay beside, not from \leg“\, to collect or \leg“\, to say. Diodorus Siculus uses \paralegomai\ in precisely this sense of coasting along, like Latin _legere oram_. In N.T. only here and verse 13|. {Fair Havens} (\Kalous Limenas\). This harbour is named Kalus Limeonas, a small bay two miles east of Cape Matala. It opens to the East and Southeast, but is not fit to winter in. This harbour would protect them for a time from the winds. {The city of Lasea} (\polis Lasea\). Neither Lasea nor Fair Havens is mentioned by any ancient writer, two of the hundred cities of Crete.

rwp@Acts:27:9 @{Where much time was spent} (\Hikanou chronou diagenomenou\). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of \diaginomai\, to come in between (\dia\). "Considerable time intervening," since they became weatherbound in this harbour, though some take it since they left Caesarea. {And the voyage was now dangerous} (\kai ontos ˆdˆ episphalous\). Genitive absolute, "and the voyage being already (\ˆdˆ\=Latin _jam_) dangerous" (old word from \epi\ and \sphall“\, to trip, to fall, and so prone to fall, here only in N.T.). {Because the Fast was now already gone by} (\dia to kai tˆn nˆsteian ˆdˆ parelˆluthenai\). Accusative (after \dia\) of the articular infinitive perfect active of \parerchomai\, to pass by, with the accusative of general reference (\nˆsteian\, the great day of atonement of the Jews, strkjv@Leviticus:16:29ff.|) occurring about the end of September. The ancients considered navigation on the Mediterranean unsafe from early October till the middle of March. In A.D. 59 the Fast occurred on Oct. 5. There is nothing strange in Luke using this Jewish note of time as in strkjv@20:6| though a Gentile Christian. Paul did it also (1Corinthians:16:8|). It is no proof that Luke was a Jewish proselyte. We do not know precisely when the party left Caesarea (possibly in August), but in ample time to arrive in Rome before October if conditions had been more favourable. But the contrary winds had made the voyage very slow and difficult all the way (verse 7|) besides the long delay here in this harbour of Fair Havens. {Paul admonished them} (\parˆinˆi ho Paulos\). Imperfect active of \paraine“\, old word to exhort from \para\ and \aine“\, to praise (3:8|), only here and verse 22| in N.T. It is remarkable that a prisoner like Paul should venture to give advice at all and to keep on doing it (imperfect tense inchoative, began to admonish and kept on at it). Paul had clearly won the respect of the centurion and officers and also felt it to be his duty to give this unasked for warning. {I perceive} (\the“r“\). Old word from \the“ros\, a spectator. See strkjv@Luke:10:18|. Paul does not here claim prophecy, but he had plenty of experience with three shipwrecks already (2Corinthians:11:25|) to justify his apprehension. {Will be} (\mellein esesthai\). Infinitive in indirect assertion followed by future infinitive after \mellein\ in spite of \hoti\ which would naturally call for present indicative \mellei\, an anacoluthon due to the long sentence (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 478). {With injury} (\meta hubre“s\). An old word from \huper\ (above, upper, like our "uppishness") and so pride, insult, personal injury, the legal word for personal assault (Page). Josephus (_Ant_. III. 6, 4) uses it of the injury of the elements. {Loss} (\zˆmian\). Old word, opposite of \kerdos\, gain or profit (Phillipians:3:7f.|). Nowhere else in N.T. {Lading} (\phortiou\). Diminutive of \phortos\ (from \pher“\, to bear) only in form. Common word, but in N.T. only here in literal sense, as metaphor in strkjv@Matthew:11:30; strkjv@23:4; strkjv@Luke:11:46; strkjv@Galatians:6:5|. {But also of our lives} (\alla kai t“n psuch“n\). Common use of \psuchˆ\ for life, originally "breath of life" (Acts:20:10|), and also "soul" (14:2|). Fortunately no lives were lost, though all else was. But this outcome was due to the special mercy of God for the sake of Paul (verse 24|), not to the wisdom of the officers in rejecting Paul's advice. Paul begins now to occupy the leading role in this marvellous voyage.

rwp@Acts:27:16 @{Running under the lee of} (\hupodramontes\). Second aorist active participle of \hupotrech“\. Same use of \hupo\ as in \hupepleusamen\ (verses 4,8|) for "under the lee", under the protection of. \Nˆsion\ is diminutive of \nˆsos\, a small island. The MSS. vary between Cauda (B) and Clauda (Aleph). {To secure the boat} (\perikrateis genesthai tˆs skaphˆs\). "To become masters (\perikrateis\ from \peri\ and \kratos\, power over, found in Susannah and ecclesiastical writers, and here only in N.T.) of the boat ("dug out," like Indian boats, literally, from \skapt“\, to dig, old word, here only in N.T. and verses 30,32|). The smooth water behind the little island enabled them to do this. {When they had hoisted it up} (\hˆn ƒrantes\). "Which (the little boat) having hoisted up (\arantes\, verse 13|)." Even so it was "with difficulty" (\molis\). Perhaps the little boat was waterlogged. {Used helps} (\boˆtheiais echr“nto\). Imperfect middle of \chraomai\ with instrumental case. The "helps" were ropes or chains, no doubt. {Under-girding the ship} (\hupoz“nnuntes to ploion\). Present active participle of \hupoz“nnumi\. Old verb, here only in N.T. Probably cables (\hupoz“mata\) or ropes were used under the hull of the ship laterally or even longitudinally, tightly secured on deck. This "frapping" was more necessary for ancient vessels because of the heavy mast. The little island made it possible to do this also. {Lest we be cast upon the Syrtis} (\mˆ eis tˆn Surtin ekpes“sin\). Final clause after verb of fearing (\phoboumenoi\) with \mˆ\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \ekpipt“\, old verb to fall out or off, to be cast away. Songs:here and verses 26,29|, a classical use of the verb for a ship driven out of its course on to shoals or rocks (Page who cites Xenophon, _Anab_. VII. 5, 12). The Syrtis was the name for two quicksands between Carthage and Cyrenaica, this clearly being the Syrtis Major most dangerous because of the sandbanks (\surtis\, from \sur“\). The wind would drive the ship right into this peril if something were not done. {They lowered the gear} (\chalasantes to skeuos\). First aorist active participle of \chala“\ (cf. strkjv@Luke:5:4| for lowering the nets). \Skeuos\ means vessel or gear. They slackened or reduced sail, especially the mainsail, but leaving enough to keep the ship's head as close to the wind as was practicable. {Songs:were driven} (\hout“s epheronto\). Imperfect passive indicative again as in verse 15| with the addition of \hout“s\ (thus). The ship was now fixed as near to the wind (E N E) as possible (seven points). That would enable the ship to go actually W by N and so avoid the quicksands. J. Smith has shown that, a day being lost around Cauda, the ship going 36 miles in 24 hours in 13 days would make 468 miles. The Island of Malta (Melita) is precisely in that direction (W by N) from Cauda and is 480 miles. Page sees a difficulty about this explanation of the steady drift of the ship in the word \diapheromenon\ in verse 27|, but that was at the end of the drifting and the varied winds could have come then and not before. The whole narrative as explained carefully in Smith's _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_ is a masterpiece of precise and accurate scholarship. A resume of his results appears in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Colossians:3:19 @{Love your wives} (\agapƒte tas gunaikas\). Present active imperative, "keep on loving." That is precisely the point. {Be not bitter} (\mˆ pikrainesthe\). Present middle imperative in prohibition: "Stop being bitter" or "do not have the habit of being bitter." This is the sin of husbands. \Pikrain“\ is an old verb from \pikros\ (bitter). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:8:11; strkjv@10:9f|. The bitter word rankles in the soul.

rwp@Colossians:4:18 @{Of me Paul with mine own hand} (\tˆi emˆi cheiri Paulou\). More precisely, "with the hand of me Paul." The genitive \Paulou\ is in apposition with the idea in the possessive pronoun \emˆi\, which is itself in the instrumental case agreeing with \cheiri\. Songs:also strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21|. {My bonds} (\mou t“n desm“n\). Genitive case with \mnemoneuete\ (remember). The chain (\en halusei\ strkjv@Ephesians:6:20|) clanked afresh as Paul took the pen to sign the salutation. He was not likely to forget it himself

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ THE FOURTH GROUP THE PASTORAL EPISTLES FIRST TIMOTHY TITUS SECOND TIMOTHY A.D. 65 TO 68 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION It is necessary to discuss introductory matters concerning the three because they are common to them all. It is true that some modern scholars admit as Pauline the personal passages in strkjv@2Timothy:1:15-18; strkjv@4:9-22| while they deny the genuineness of the rest. But that criticism falls by its own weight since precisely the same stylistic characteristics appear in these admitted passages as in the rest and no earthly reason can be advanced for Paul's writing mere scraps or for the omission of the other portions and the preservation of these by a second century forger.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_ (1921). Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@Galatians:2:2 @{By revelation} (\kata apokalupsin\). In strkjv@Acts:15:2| the church sent them. But surely there is no inconsistency here. {I laid before them} (\anethemˆn autois\). Second aorist middle indicative of old word \anatithˆmi\, to put up, to place before, with the dative case. But who were the "them" (\autois\)? Evidently not the private conference for he distinguishes this address from that, "but privately" (\kat' idian\). Just place strkjv@Acts:15:4f.| beside the first clause and it is clear: "I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," precisely as Luke has recorded. Then came the private conference after the uproar caused by the Judaizers (Acts:15:5|). {Before them who were of repute} (\tois dokousin\). He names three of them (Cephas, James, and John). James the Lord's brother, for the other James is now dead (Acts:12:1f.|). But there were others also, a select group of real leaders. The decision reached by this group would shape the decision of the public conference in the adjourned meeting. Songs:far as we know Paul had not met John before, though he had met Peter and James at the other visit. Lightfoot has much to say about the Big Four (St. Paul and the Three) who here discuss the problems of mission work among Jews and Gentiles. It was of the utmost importance that they should see eye to eye. The Judaizers were assuming that the twelve apostles and James the Lord's brother would side with them against Paul and Barnabas. Peter had already been before the Jerusalem Church for his work in Caesarea (Acts:11:1-18|). James was considered a very loyal Jew. {Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain} (\mˆ p“s eis kenon trech“ ˆ edramon\). Negative purpose with the present subjunctive (\trech“\) and then by a sudden change the aorist indicative (\edramon\), as a sort of afterthought or retrospect (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 201; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 988). There are plenty of classical parallels. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:5| for both together again.

rwp@Galatians:5:10 @{Whosoever he be} (\hostis ean ˆi\). Indefinite relative clause with \ean\ and subjunctive. It seems unlikely that Paul knew precisely who the leader was. In strkjv@1:6| he uses the plural of the same verb \tarass“\ and see also \anastatountes\ in verse 12|.

rwp@Galatians:5:14 @{Even in this} (\en t“i\). Just the article with \en\, "in the," but it points at the quotation from strkjv@Leviticus:19:18|. Jews (Luke:10:29|) confined "neighbour" (\plˆsion\) to Jews. Paul uses here a striking paradox by urging obedience to the law against which he has been arguing, but this is the moral law as proof of the new love and life. See also strkjv@Romans:13:8|, precisely as Jesus did (Matthew:22:40|).

rwp@Hebrews:6:1 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). Because of the argument already made about the difficulty of the subject and the dulness of the readers. {Let us cease to speak} (\aphentes ton logon\). Second aorist active participle of \aphiˆmi\, to leave off or behind. {Of the first principles of Christ} (\tˆs archˆs tou Christou\). Objective genitive \Christou\ (about Christ). "Leaving behind the discussion of the beginning about Christ," another way of saying again \ta stoicheia tˆs archˆs t“n logi“n tou theou\ of strkjv@5:12|. {And press on} (\kai pher“metha\). Volitive present subjunctive passive, "Let us be borne on" (both the writer and the readers). The Pythagorean Schools use \pher“metha\ in precisely this sense of being borne on to a higher stage of instruction. Bleek quotes several instances of Greek writers using together as here of \aphentes pher“metha\ (Eurip., _Androm_. 393, for instance). {Unto perfection} (\epi tˆn teleiotˆta\). Old word from \teleios\ mature, adults as in strkjv@5:14|. Only twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Colossians:3:14|). Let us go on to the stage of adults, not babes, able to masticate solid spiritual food. The writer will assume that the readers are adults in his discussion of the topic. {Not laying again the foundation} (\mˆ palin themelion kataballomenoi\). The regular idiom for laying down the foundation of a building (\themelion\, strkjv@Luke:6:48f.|). The metaphor is common (1Corinthians:3:11|) and the foundation is important, but one cannot be laying the foundation always if he is to build the house. There are six items mentioned here as part of the "foundation," though the accusative \didachˆn\ in apposition with \themelion\ may mean that there are only four included in the \themelion\. Two are qualitative genitives after \themelion\ (\metanoias\ and \piste“s\). What is meant by "dead works" (\apo nekr“n erg“n\) is not clear (9:14|), though the reference may be to touching a corpse (Numbers:19:1f.; strkjv@31:19|). There are frequent allusions to the deadening power of sin (James:2:17,26; strkjv@John:7:25; Rom strkjv@6:1,11; strkjv@7:8; strkjv@Colossians:2:13; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,5|). The use of repentance and faith together occurs also elsewhere (Mark:1:15; strkjv@Acts:20:21; strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9|).

rwp@Hebrews:11:4 @{A more excellent sacrifice} (\pleiona thusian\). Literally, "more sacrifice" (comparative of \polus\, much). For this rather free use of \plei“n\ with the point implied rather than stated see strkjv@Matthew:6:25; strkjv@Luke:10:31; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@Hebrews:3:3|. {Than Cain} (\para Kain\). For this use of \para\ after comparative see strkjv@1:4,9|. For the incident see strkjv@Genesis:4:4|. {Through which} (\di' hˆs\). The sacrifice (\thusia\). {He had Witness borne to him} (\emarturˆthˆ\). First aorist passive indicative of \marture“\ as in verse 2|, "he was witnessed to." {That he was righteous} (\einai dikaios\). Infinitive in indirect discourse after \emarturˆthˆ\, personal construction of \dikaios\ (predicate nominative after \einai\) agreeing with the subject of \emarturˆthˆ\ (cf. strkjv@Romans:1:22|, \einai sophoi\). {God bearing witness} (\marturountos tou theou\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \marture“\. {Through it} (\di' autˆs\). Through his faith (as shown by his sacrifice). Precisely why Abel's sacrifice was better than that of Cain apart from his faith is not shown. {Being dead} (\apothan“n\). Second aorist active participle of \apothnˆsk“\, "having died." {Yet speaketh} (\eti lalei\). Cf. strkjv@Genesis:4:10; strkjv@Hebrews:12:24|. Speaks still through his faith.

rwp@Info_James @ THE PURPOSE If James is writing solely to non-Christian Jews, the purpose is to win them to Christ, and so he puts the gospel message in a way to get a hearing from the Jews. That is true, whether he has them in mind or not, though he does not do it by the suppression of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the very first verse he places him on a par with God as "the Lord Jesus Christ." In strkjv@James:2:1| he presents Jesus as the object of faith: "as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory" (Moffatt's Translation), where Jesus is termed the Shekinah Glory of God. It is true that there is no discussion in the Epistle of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, but there is an allusion to the murder of Jesus in strkjv@James:5:6| and the second coming in strkjv@James:5:8|. The chief aim of the Epistle is to strengthen the faith and loyalty of the Jewish Christians in the face of persecution from rich and overbearing Jews who were defrauding and oppressing them. It is a picture of early Christian life in the midst of difficult social conditions between capital and labor which also exist today. Songs:then it is a very modern message even if it is the earliest New Testament book. The glory of the New Testament lies precisely at this point in that the revelation of God in Christ meets our problems today because it did meet those of the first century A.D. Christian principles stand out clearly for our present-day living.

rwp@James:4:5 @{The Scripture} (\hˆ graphˆ\). Personification as in strkjv@Galatians:3:8; strkjv@James:2:23|. But no O.T. passage is precisely like this, though it is "a poetical rendering" (Ropes) of strkjv@Exodus:20:5|. The general thought occurs also in strkjv@Genesis:6:3-5; strkjv@Isaiah:63:8-16|, etc. Paul has the same idea also (Galatians:5:17,21; strkjv@Romans:8:6,8|). It is possible that the reference is really to the quotation in verse 6| from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34| and treating all before as a parenthesis. There is no way to decide positively. {In vain} (\ken“s\). Old adverb (Aristotle) from \ken“s\ (2:20|), here alone in N.T. "Emptily," not meaning what it says. {Made to dwell} (\kat“ikisen\). First aorist active of \katoikiz“\, old verb, to give a dwelling to, only here in N.T. {Long unto envying} (\pros phthonon epipothei\). A difficult phrase. Some even take \pros phthonon\ with \legei\ rather than with \epipothei\, as it naturally does go, meaning "jealously." But even so, with God presented as a jealous lover, does \to pneuma\ refer to the Holy Spirit as the subject of \epipothei\ or to man's spirit as the object of \epipothei\? Probably the former and \epipothei\ then means to yearn after in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|.

rwp@James:5:14 @{Is any among you sick?} (\asthenei tis en humin;\). Present active indicative of \asthene“\, old verb, to be weak (without strength), often in N.T. (Matthew:10:8|). {Let him call for} (\proskalesasth“\). First aorist (ingressive) middle imperative of \proskale“\. Note change of tense (aorist) and middle (indirect) voice. Care for the sick is urged in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| ("help the sick"). Note the plural here, "elders of the church, as in strkjv@Acts:20:17; strkjv@15:6,22; strkjv@21:18; strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| (bishops). {Let them pray over him} (\proseuxasth“san ep' auton\). First aorist middle imperative of \proseuchomai\. Prayer for the sick is clearly enjoined. {Anointing him with oil} (\aleipsantes elai“i\). First aorist active participle of \aleiph“\, old verb, to anoint, and the instrumental case of \elaion\ (oil). The aorist participle can be either simultaneous or antecedent with \proseuxasth“san\ (pray). See the same use of \aleiph“ elai“i\ in strkjv@Mark:6:13|. The use of olive oil was one of the best remedial agencies known to the ancients. They used it internally and externally. Some physicians prescribe it today. It is clear both in strkjv@Mark:6:13| and here that medicinal value is attached to the use of the oil and emphasis is placed on the worth of prayer. There is nothing here of the pagan magic or of the later practice of "extreme unction" (after the eighth century). It is by no means certain that \aleiph“\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:13| means "anoint" in a ceremonial fashion rather than "rub" as it commonly does in medical treatises. Trench (N.T. Synonyms) says: "\Aleiphein\ is the mundane and profane, \chriein\ the sacred and religious, word." At bottom in James we have God and medicine, God and the doctor, and that is precisely where we are today. The best physicians believe in God and want the help of prayer.

rwp@Info_John @ THE BELOVED DISCIPLE The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John:21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (John:21:24|). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with strkjv@John:20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in strkjv@John:21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34| for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz“\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos ˆn\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eip“n\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis“ mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis“ mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti pr“tos mou ˆn\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\ˆn imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Pr“tos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin‚_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\pr“tos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \pr“ton hum“n\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron hum“n\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.

rwp@John:3:4 @Being old (\ger“n “n\). Nicodemus was probably familiar with the notion of re-birth for proselytes to Judaism for the Gentiles, but not with the idea that a Jew had to be reborn. But "this stupid misunderstanding" (Bernard) of the meaning of Jesus is precisely what John represents Nicodemus as making. How "old" Nicodemus was we do not know, but surely too old to be the young ruler of strkjv@Luke:18:18| as Bacon holds. The blunder of Nicodemus is emphasized by the second question with the \mˆ\ expecting the negative answer. The use of \deuteron\ adds to the grotesqueness of his blunder. The learned Pharisee is as jejune in spiritual insight as the veriest tyro. This is not an unheard of phenomenon.

rwp@John:3:16 @{For so} (\hout“s gar\). This use of \gar\ is quite in John's style in introducing his comments (2:25; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@5:13|, etc.). This "Little Gospel" as it is often called, this "comfortable word" (the Anglican Liturgy), while not a quotation from Jesus is a just and marvellous interpretation of the mission and message of our Lord. In verses 16-21| John recapitulates in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus. {Loved} (\ˆgapˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \agapa“\, the noble word so common in the Gospels for the highest form of love, used here as often in John (14:23; strkjv@17:23; strkjv@1John:3:1; strkjv@4:10|) of God's love for man (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:2:4|). In strkjv@21:15| John presents a distinction between \agapa“\ and \phile“\. \Agapa“\ is used also for love of men for men (13:34|), for Jesus (8:42|), for God (1John:4:10|). {The world} (\ton kosmon\). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God's love appears also in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19; strkjv@Romans:5:8|. {That he gave} (\h“ste ed“ken\). The usual classical construction with \h“ste\ and the indicative (first aorist active) practical result, the only example in the N.T. save that in strkjv@Galatians:2:13|. Elsewhere \h“ste\ with the infinitive occurs for actual result (Matthew:13:32|) as well as purpose (Matthew:10:1|), though even this is rare. {His only begotten Son} (\ton huion ton monogenˆ\). "The Son the only begotten." For this word see on ¯1:14,18; strkjv@3:18|. The rest of the sentence, the purpose clause with \hina-echˆi\ precisely reproduces the close of strkjv@3:15| save that \eis auton\ takes the place of \en aut“i\ (see strkjv@1:12|) and goes certainly with \pisteu“n\ (not with \echˆi\ as \en aut“i\ in verse 15|) and the added clause "should not perish but" (\mˆ apolˆtai alla\, second aorist middle subjunctive, intransitive, of \apollumi\, to destroy). The same contrast between "perish" and "eternal life" (for this world and the next) appears also in strkjv@10:28|. On "perish" see also strkjv@17:12|.

rwp@John:3:19 @{And this is the judgment} (\hautˆ de estin hˆ krisis\). A thoroughly Johannine phrase for sequence of thought (15:12; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@1John:1:5; strkjv@5:11,14; strkjv@3John:1:6|). It is more precisely the process of judging (\kri-sis\) rather than the result (\kri-ma\) of the judgment. "It is no arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law" (Bernard). {The light is come} (\to ph“s elˆluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, a permanent result as already explained in the Prologue concerning the Incarnation (1:4,5,9,11|). Jesus is the Light of the world. {Loved darkness} (\ˆgapˆsan to skotos\). Job:(Job:24:13|) spoke of men rebelling against the light. Here \to skotos\, common word for moral and spiritual darkness (1Thessalonians:5:5|), though \hˆ skotia\ in strkjv@John:1:5|. "Darkness" is common in John as a metaphor for the state of sinners (8:12; strkjv@12:35, 46; strkjv@1John:1:6; strkjv@2:8,9,11|). Jesus himself is the only moral and spiritual light of the world (8:12|) as he dared claim to his enemies. The pathos of it all is that men fall in love with the darkness of sin and rebel against the light like denizens of the underworld, "for their works were evil (\ponˆra\)." When the light appears, they scatter to their holes and dens. \Ponˆros\ (from \ponos\, toil, \pone“\, to toil) is used of the deeds of the world by Jesus (7:7|). In the end the god of this world blinds men's eyes so that they do not see the light (2Corinthians:4:4|). The fish in the Mammoth Cave have no longer eyes, but only sockets where eyes used to be. The evil one has a powerful grip on the world (1John:5:19|).

rwp@John:4:24 @{God is a Spirit} (\pneuma ho theos\). More precisely, "God is Spirit" as "God is Light" (1John:1:5|), "God is Love" (1John:4:8|). In neither case can we read Spirit is God, Light is God, Love is God. The non-corporeality of God is clearly stated and the personality of God also. All this is put in three words for the first time. {Must} (\dei\). Here is the real necessity (\dei\), not the one used by the woman about the right place of worship (verse 20|).

rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon ezˆtoun\). Imperfect active of \zˆte“\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu“\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu“\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu“\ in this sense like \luein ta penthˆ\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poi“n t“i the“i\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa the“i\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos the“i\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).

rwp@John:6:8 @{One of} (\heis ek\). Songs:in strkjv@12:4|; strkjv@13:23; strkjv@Mark:13:1| without \ek\. {Simon Peter's brother} (\ho adelphos Sim“nos Petrou\). Songs:described in strkjv@1:40|. The great distinction of Andrew was precisely this that he brought Simon to Christ. Philip and Andrew appear together again in strkjv@12:20-22|, but in the Synoptics he is distinguished only in strkjv@Mark:13:3|. In the Muratorian Fragment Andrew received the revelation for John to write the Fourth Gospel.

rwp@John:6:65 @{Except it be given him of the Father} (\ean mˆ ˆi dedomenon aut“i ek tou patros\). Condition of third class with \ean mˆ\ and periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of \did“mi\. Precisely the same point as in verse 44| where we have \helkusˆi\ instead of \ˆi dedomenon\. The impulse to faith comes from God. Jesus does not expect all to believe and seems to imply that Judas did not truly believe.

rwp@John:7:8 @{Go ye up to the feast} (\humeis anabˆte eis tˆn heortˆn\). The emphatic word by position is \humeis\ (ye) in contrast with \eg“\ (I). Second aorist active imperative of \anabain“\, old and common verb for going up to the feast (2:13|) or anywhere. Take your own advice (7:3|). {I go not up yet} (\eg“ oup“ anabain“\). Songs:Westcott and Hort after B W L (Neutral) while \ou\ (not) is read by Aleph D, African Latin, Vulgate, Coptic (Western). Some of the early Greek Fathers were puzzled over the reading \ouk\ (I go not up) as contradictory to verse 10| wherein it is stated that Jesus did go up. Almost certainly \ouk\ (not) is correct and is not really contradictory when one notes in verse 10| that the manner of Christ's going up is precisely the opposite of the advice of the brothers in verses 3,4|. "Not yet" (\oup“\) is genuine before "fulfilled" (\peplˆr“tai\, perfect passive indicative of \plˆro“\). One may think, if he will, that Jesus changed his plans after these words, but that is unnecessary. He simply refused to fall in with his brothers' sneering proposal for a grand Messianic procession with the caravan on the way to the feast. He will do that on the journey to the last passover.

rwp@John:8:34 @{Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin} (\pas ho poi“n tˆn hamartian doulos estin [tˆs hamartias]\). The Western class omits \tˆs hamartias\ (sin), but that is the idea anyhow. Note the use of \poi“n\ (present active participle, continuous habit or practice), not \poiˆsas\ (aorist active participle for single act), precisely as in strkjv@1John:3:4-8|. Note also strkjv@3:21| for \ho poi“n tˆn alˆtheian\ (the one who practises the truth). Sin, like the worst narcotic, is habit forming. Hence the problem today for criminologists for paroled or pardoned criminals nearly always go back to crime, sink again into sin, the slaves of sin. Xenophon has this notion of the slavery of sin (_Memor_. IV. 5. 3). Songs:Paul clearly in strkjv@Romans:6:17,20| "slaves of sin" (\douloi tˆs hamartias\).

rwp@John:11:32 @{Fell down at his feet} (\epesen autou pros tous podas\). Second aorist active of \pipt“\, to fall. Note unusual position of \autou\. This impulsive act like Mary. She said precisely what Martha had said to Jesus (verse 21|). But she said no more, only wept (verse 33|).

rwp@John:13:20 @{Whomsoever I send} (\an tina pemps“\). More precisely, "If I send any one" (third-class condition, \an=ean\ and \tina\, indefinite pronoun accusative case, object of \pemps“\, first aorist active subjunctive of \pemp“\, to send). This use of \ei tis\ or \ean tis\ (if any one) is very much like the indefinite relative \hostis\ and \hos an\ (or \ean\), but the idiom is different. In strkjv@Mark:8:34f.| we have both \ei tis thelei\ and \hos ean\ while in strkjv@John:14:13f.| we find \hoti an\ and \ean ti\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 956).

rwp@John:20:23 @{Whosesoever sins ye forgive} (\an tin“n aphˆte tas hamartias\). "If the sins of any ye forgive" (\aphˆte\, second aorist active subjunctive with \an\ in the sense of \ean\), a condition of the third class. Precisely so with "retain" (\kratˆte\, present active subjunctive of \krate“\). {They are forgiven} (\aphe“ntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \aphiˆmi\, Doric perfect for \apheintai\. {Are retained} (\kekratˆntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krate“\. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right (Mark:2:5-7|). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In strkjv@Matthew:16:19; strkjv@18:18| we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ's love for men.

rwp@John:20:26 @{After eight days} (\meth' hˆmeras okt“\). That is the next Sunday evening, on the eighth day in reality just like "after three days" and "on the third day." {Within} (\es“\). Apparently in the same room as before. {Cometh} (\erchetai\). Vivid dramatic present. The other items precisely as in verse 19| save Thomas was with them.

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Iˆsous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin‚_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\ˆn h“sei et“n triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\“n huios h“s enomizeto I“sˆph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\h“s enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Luke:4:9 @{Led him} (\ˆgagen\). Aorist active indicative of \ag“\. strkjv@Matthew:4:5| has \paralambanei\ (dramatic present). {The wing of the temple} (\to pterugion tou hierou\). See on ¯Matthew:4:5|. It is not easy to determine precisely what it was. {From hence} (\enteuthen\). This Luke adds to the words in Matthew, which see. {To guard thee} (\tou diaphulaxai se\). Not in strkjv@Matthew:4:6| quoted by Satan from strkjv@Psalms:91:11,12|. Satan does not misquote this Psalm, but he misapplies it and makes it mean presumptuous reliance on God. This compound verb is very old, but occurs here alone in the N.T. and that from the LXX. Luke repeats \hoti\ (recitative \hoti\ after \gegraptai\, is written) after this part of the quotation.

rwp@Luke:4:39 @{He stood over her} (\epistas epan“ autˆs\). Second aorist active participle. Only in Luke. Surely we are not to take Luke to mean that Jesus here took the exorcist's position and was rebuking a malignant personality. The attitude of Jesus is precisely that of any kindly sympathetic physician. strkjv@Mark:1:31; strkjv@Matthew:8:15| mention the touch of her hand rather than the tender look over her head. {Rebuked} (\epetimˆsen\). Only in Luke. Jesus bade the fever leave her as he spoke to the wind and the waves and Luke uses this same verb (8:24|). {Rose up and ministered} (\anastƒsa diˆkonei\). Second aorist active participle as in verse 38|, but inchoative imperfect tense \diˆkonei\, from \diakone“\ (note augment of compound verb). She rose up immediately, though a long high fever usually leaves one very weak. The cure was instantaneous and complete. She began to minister at once and kept it up.

rwp@Luke:6:40 @{The disciple is not above his master} (\ouk estin mathˆtˆs huper ton didaskalon\). Literally, a learner (or pupil) is not above the teacher. Precisely so in strkjv@Matthew:10:24| where "slave" is added with "lord." But here Luke adds: "But everyone when he is perfected shall be as his master" (\katˆrtismenos de pƒs estai h“s ho didaskalos autou\). The state of completion, perfect passive participle, is noted in \katˆrtismenos\. The word is common for mending broken things or nets (Matthew:4:21|) or men (Galatians:6:1|). Songs:it is a long process to get the pupil patched up to the plane of his teacher.

rwp@Luke:7:19 @{Calling unto him} (\proskalesamenos\). First aorist middle (indirect) participle. {Two} (\duo tinas\). Certain two. Not in strkjv@Matthew:11:2|. {Saying} (\leg“n\). John saying by the two messengers. The message is given precisely alike in strkjv@Matthew:11:3|, which see. In both we have \heteron\ for "another," either a second or a different kind. In verse 20| Westcott and Hort read \allon\ in the text, \heteron\ in the margin. \Prosdok“men\, may be present indicative or present subjunctive (deliberative), the same contract form (\ao= “, a“ “\).

rwp@Luke:7:24 @{When the messengers of John were departed} (\apelthont“n t“n aggel“n I“anou\). Genitive absolute of aorist active participle. strkjv@Matthew:11:7| has the present middle participle \poreuomen“n\, suggesting that Jesus began his eulogy of John as soon as the messengers (angels, Luke calls them) were on their way. The vivid questions about the people's interest in John are precisely alike in both Matthew and Luke.

rwp@Luke:7:25 @{Gorgeously apparelled} (\en himatism“i endox“i\). In splendid clothing. Here alone in this sense in the N.T. {And live delicately} (\truphˆi\). From \thrupt“\ to break down, to enervate, an old word for luxurious living. See the verb \trupha“\ in strkjv@James:5:5|. {In kings' courts} (\en tois basileiois\). Only here in the N.T. strkjv@Matthew:11:8| has it "in kings' houses." Verses 26,27| are precisely alike in strkjv@Matthew:11:9,10|, which see for discussion.

rwp@Luke:9:22 @{Rejected} (\apodokimasthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \apodokimaz“\, to reject after trial. {The third day} (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi\). Locative case of time as in strkjv@Matthew:16:21|. Here in the parallel passage strkjv@Mark:8:31| has "after three days" (\meta treis hˆmeras\) in precisely the same sense. That is to say, "after three days" is just a free way of saying "on the third day" and cannot mean "on the fourth day" if taken too literally. For discussion of this plain prediction of the death of Christ with various details see discussion on strkjv@Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Mark:8:31|. It was a melancholy outlook that depressed the disciples as Mark and Matthew show in the protest of Peter and his rebuke.

rwp@Luke:10:21 @{In that same hour} (\en autˆi tˆi h“rƒi\). Literally, "at the hour itself," almost a demonstrative use of \autos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 686) and in Luke alone in the N.T. (2:38; strkjv@10:21; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@20:19|). strkjv@Matthew:11:25| uses the demonstrative here, "at that time" (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i\). {Rejoiced in the Holy Spirit} (\ˆgalliasato t“i pneumati t“i hagi“i\). First aorist middle of the late verb \agallia“\ for \agall“\, to exult. Always in the middle in the N.T. save strkjv@Luke:1:47| in Mary's _Magnificat_. This holy joy of Jesus was directly due to the Holy Spirit. It is joy in the work of his followers, their victories over Satan, and is akin to the joy felt by Jesus in strkjv@John:4:32-38| when the vision of the harvest of the world stirred his heart. The rest of this verse is precisely like strkjv@Matthew:11:25f.|, a peculiarly Johannine passage in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, and so from Q (the Logia of Jesus). It has disturbed critics who are unwilling to admit the Johannine style and type of teaching as genuine, but here it is. See on Matthew for discussion. "That God had proved his independence of the human intellect is a matter for thankfulness. Intellectual gifts, so far from being necessary, are often a hindrance" (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:10:31 @{By chance} (\kata sugkurian\). Here only in the N.T., meaning rather, "by way of coincidence." It is a rare word elsewhere and in late writers like Hippocrates. It is from the verb \sugkure“\, though \sugkurˆsis\ is more common. {Was going down} (\katebainen\). Imperfect active as in verse 30|. Passed by on the other side (\antiparˆlthen\). Second aorist active indicative of \antiparerchomai\, a late double compound here (verses 31,32|) only in the N.T., but in the papyri and late writers. It is the ingressive aorist (\ˆlthen\), came alongside (\para\), and then he stepped over to the opposite side (\anti\) of the road to avoid ceremonial contamination with a stranger. A vivid and powerful picture of the vice of Jewish ceremonial cleanliness at the cost of moral principle and duty. The Levite in verse 32| behaved precisely as the priest had done and for the same reason.

rwp@Luke:12:22 @{Unto his disciples} (\pros tous mathˆtas autou\). Songs:Jesus turns from the crowd to the disciples (verses 22-40|, when Peter interrupts the discourse). From here to the end of the chapter Luke gives material that appears in Matthew, but not in one connection as here. In Matthew part of it is in the charge to the Twelve on their tour in Galilee, part in the eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives. None of it is in Mark. Hence Q or the Logia seems to be the source of it. The question recurs again whether Jesus repeated on other occasions what is given here or whether Luke has here put together separate discourses as Matthew is held by many to have done in the Sermon on the Mount. We have no way of deciding these points. We can only say again that Jesus would naturally repeat his favourite sayings like other popular preachers and teachers. Songs:Luke:12:22-31| corresponds to strkjv@Matthew:6:25-33|, which see for detailed discussion. The parable of the rich fool was spoken to the crowd, but this exhortation to freedom from care (22-31|) is to the disciples. Songs:the language in strkjv@Luke:12:22| is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:6:25|. See there for \mˆ merimnƒte\ (stop being anxious) and the deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question (\phagˆte, endusˆsthe\). Songs:verse 23| here is the same in strkjv@Matthew:6:25| except that there it is a question with \ouch\ expecting the affirmative answer, whereas here it is given as a reason (\gar\, for) for the preceding command.

rwp@Luke:13:20 @{Whereunto shall I liken?} (\Tini homoi“s“;\). This question alone in Luke here as in verse 18|. But the parable is precisely like that in strkjv@Matthew:13:33|, which see for details.

rwp@Luke:16:13 @{Servant} (\oiketˆs\). Household (\oikos\) servant. This is the only addition to strkjv@Matthew:6:24| where otherwise the language is precisely the same, which see. Either Matthew or Luke has put the \logion\ in the wrong place or Jesus spoke it twice. It suits perfectly each context. There is no real reason for objecting to repetition of favourite sayings by Jesus.

rwp@Mark:1:20 @{With the hired servants} (\meta t“n misth“t“n\). One hired for wages (\misthos\), a very old Greek word. Zebedee and his two sons evidently had an extensive business in co-operation with Andrew and Simon (Luke:5:7,10|). Mark alone has this detail of the hired servants left with Zebedee. They left the boat and their father (Matthew:4:22|) with the hired servants. The business would go on while they left all (Luke:5:11|) and became permanent followers of Jesus. Many a young man has faced precisely this problem when he entered the ministry. Could he leave father and mother, brothers and sisters, while he went forth to college and seminary to become a fisher of men? Not the least of the sacrifices made in the education of young preachers is that made by the home folks who have additional burdens to bear because the young preacher is no longer a bread-winner at home. Most young preachers joyfully carry on such burdens after entering the ministry.

rwp@Mark:4:38 @{Asleep on the cushion} (\epi to proskephalaion katheud“n\). Mark also mentions the cushion or bolster and the stern of the boat (\en tˆi prumnˆi\). strkjv@Matthew:8:24| notes that Jesus was sleeping (\ekatheuden\), Luke that {he fell asleep} (\aphupn“sen\, ingressive aorist indicative). He was worn out from the toil of this day. {They awake him} (\egeirousin auton\). Songs:Mark's graphic present. Matthew and Luke both have "awoke him." Mark has also what the others do not: "Carest thou not?" (\ou melei soi;\). It was a rebuke to Jesus for sleeping in such a storm. We are perishing (\apollumetha\, linear present middle). Precisely this same form also in strkjv@Matthew:8:25| and strkjv@Luke:8:24|.

rwp@Matthew:2:5 @{And they said unto him} (\hoi de eipan aut“i\). Whether the ecclesiastics had to search their scriptures or not, they give the answer that is in accord with the common Jewish opinion that the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem and of the seed of David (John:7:42|). Songs:they quote strkjv@Micah:5:2|, "a free paraphrase" Alford calls it, for it is not precisely like the Hebrew text or like the Septuagint. It may have come from a collection of _testimonia_ with which J. Rendel Harris has made the world familiar. He had consulted the experts and now he has their answer. Bethlehem of Judah is the place. The use of the perfect passive indicative (\gegraptai\) is the common form in quoting scripture. It stands written. {Shall be shepherd} (\poimanei\). The Authorized Version had "shall rule," but "shepherd" is correct. "Homer calls kings 'the shepherds of the people'" (Vincent). In strkjv@Hebrews:13:20| Jesus is called "the great shepherd of the sheep." Jesus calls himself "the good shepherd" (John:10:11|). Peter calls Christ "the chief shepherd" (1Peter:2:25|). "The Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd" (Revelation:7:17|). Jesus told Peter to "shepherd" the lambs (John:21:16|). Our word pastor means shepherd.

rwp@Matthew:3:1 @{And in those days cometh John the Baptist} (\en de tais hˆmerais paraginetai I“anˆs ho Baptistˆs\). Here the synoptic narrative begins with the baptism of John (Mt. strkjv@3:1; strkjv@Mark:1:2; strkjv@Luke:3:1|) as given by Peter in strkjv@Acts:1:22|, "from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us" (cf. also strkjv@Acts:10:37-43|, Peter's summary to Cornelius very much like the outline of Mark's Gospel). Matthew does not indicate the date when John appeared as Luke does in ch. 3 (the fifteenth year of Tiberius's reign). It was some thirty years after the birth of John, precisely how long after the return of Joseph and Mary to Nazareth we do not know. Moffatt translates the verb (\paraginetai\) "came on the scene," but it is the historical present and calls for a vivid imagination on the part of the reader. There he is as he comes forward, makes his appearance. His name John means "Gift of Jehovah" (cf. German _Gotthold_) and is a shortened form of Johanan. He is described as "the Baptist," "the Baptizer" for that is the rite that distinguishes him. The Jews probably had proselyte baptism as I. Abrahams shows (_Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels_, p. 37). But this rite was meant for the Gentiles who accepted Judaism. John is treating the Jews as Gentiles in demanding baptism at their hands on the basis of repentance.

rwp@Matthew:6:2 @{Sound not a trumpet} (\mˆ salpisˆis\). Is this literal or metaphorical? No actual instance of such conduct has been found in the Jewish writings. McNeile suggests that it may refer to the blowing of trumpets in the streets on the occasion of public fasts. Vincent suggests the thirteen trumpet-shaped chests of the temple treasury to receive contributions (Luke:21:2|). But at Winona Lake one summer a missionary from India named Levering stated to me that he had seen Hindu priests do precisely this very thing to get a crowd to see their beneficences. Songs:it looks as if the rabbis could do it also. Certainly it was in keeping with their love of praise. And Jesus expressly says that "the hypocrites" (\hoi hupokritai\) do this very thing. This is an old word for actor, interpreter, one who personates another, from \hupokrinomai\ to answer in reply like the Attic \apokrinomai\. Then to pretend, to feign, to dissemble, to act the hypocrite, to wear a mask. This is the hardest word that Jesus has for any class of people and he employs it for these pious pretenders who pose as perfect. {They have received their reward} (\apechousin ton misthon aut“n\). This verb is common in the papyri for receiving a receipt, "they have their receipt in full," all the reward that they will get, this public notoriety. "They can sign the receipt of their reward" (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 229). Songs:_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 110f. \Apochˆ\ means "receipt." Songs:also in strkjv@6:5|.

rwp@Matthew:9:6 @{That ye may know} (\hina eidˆte\). Jesus accepts the challenge in the thoughts of the scribes and performs the miracle of healing the paralytic, who so far only had his sins forgiven, to prove his Messianic power on earth to forgive sins even as God does. The word \exousia\ may mean either power or authority. He had both as a matter of fact. Note same word in strkjv@9:8|. {Then saith he to the sick of the palsy} (\tote legei t“i paralutik“i\). These words of course, were not spoken by Jesus. Curiously enough Matthew interjects them right in the midst of the sayings of Jesus in reply to the scorn of the scribes. Still more remarkable is the fact that Mark (Mark:2:10|) has precisely the same words in the same place save that Matthew has added \tote\, of which he is fond, to what Mark already had. Mark, as we know, largely reports Peter's words and sees with Peter's eyes. Luke has the same idea in the same place without the vivid historical present \legei (eipen t“i paralelumen“i)\ with the participle in place of the adjective. This is one of the many proofs that both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark's Gospel each in his own way. {Take up thy bed} (\ƒron sou tˆn klinˆn\). Pack up at once (aorist active imperative) the rolled-up pallet.

rwp@Matthew:11:25 @{At that season Jesus answered and said} (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i apokritheis eipen\). Spoke to his Father in audible voice. The time and place we do not know. But here we catch a glimpse of Jesus in one of his moods of worship. "It is usual to call this golden utterance a prayer, but it is at once prayer, praise, and self-communing in a devout spirit" (Bruce). Critics are disturbed because this passage from the Logia of Jesus or Q of Synoptic criticism (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|) is so manifestly Johannine in spirit and very language, "the Father" (\ho patˆr\), "the son" (\ho huios\), whereas the Fourth Gospel was not written till the close of the first century and the Logia was written before the Synoptic Gospels. The only satisfying explanation lies in the fact that Jesus did have this strain of teaching that is preserved in John's Gospel. Here he is in precisely the same mood of elevated communion with the Father that we have reflected in John 14 to 17. Even Harnack is disposed to accept this Logion as a genuine saying of Jesus. The word "thank" (\homologoumai\) is better rendered "praise" (Moffatt). Jesus praises the Father "not that the \sophoi\ were ignorant, but that the \nˆpioi\ knew" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:12:3 @{What David did} (\ti epoiˆsen Daueid\). From the necessity of hunger. The first defence made by Christ appeals to the conduct of David (2Samuel:21:6|). David and those with him did "what was not lawful" (\ho ouk exon ˆn\) precisely the charge made against the disciples (\ho ouk exestin\ in verse 2|).

rwp@Matthew:13:23 @{Verily beareth fruit} (\dˆ karpophorei\). Who in reality (\dˆ\) does bear fruit (cf. strkjv@Matthew:7:16-20|). The fruit reveals the character of the tree and the value of the straw for wheat. Some grain must come else it is only chaff, straw, worthless. The first three classes have no fruit and so show that they are unfruitful soil, unsaved souls and lives. There is variety in those who do bear fruit, but they have some fruit. The lesson of the parable as explained by Jesus is precisely this, the variety in the results of the seed sown according to the soil on which it falls. Every teacher and preacher knows how true this is. It is the teacher's task as the sower to sow the right seed, the word of the kingdom. The soil determines the outcome. There are critics today who scout this interpretation of the parable by Jesus as too allegorical with too much detail and probably not that really given by Jesus since modern scholars are not agreed on the main point of the parable. But the average Christian sees the point all right. This parable was not meant to explain all the problems of human life.

rwp@Matthew:26:28 @{The Covenant} (\tˆs diathˆkˆs\). The adjective \kainˆs\ in Textus Receptus is not genuine. The covenant is an agreement or contract between two (\dia, duo, thˆke\, from \tithˆmi\). It is used also for will (Latin, _testamentum_) which becomes operative at death (Hebrews:9:15-17|). Hence our _New Testament_. Either covenant or will makes sense here. Covenant is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:7:22; strkjv@8:8| and often. In the Hebrew to make a covenant was to cut up the sacrifice and so ratify the agreement (Genesis:15:9-18|). Lightfoot argues that the word \diathˆke\ means covenant in the N.T. except in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15-17|. Jesus here uses the solemn words of strkjv@Exodus:24:8| "the blood of the covenant" at Sinai. "My blood of the covenant" is in contrast with that. This is the New Covenant of strkjv@Jeremiah:31; strkjv@Hebrews:8|. {Which is shed for many} (\to peri poll“n ekchunnomenon\). A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in strkjv@20:28|. There \anti\ and here \peri\. {Unto remission of sins} (\eis aphesin hamarti“n\). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins.

rwp@Matthew:27:32 @{Compelled} (\ˆggareusan\). This word of Persian origin was used in strkjv@Matthew:5:41|, which see. There are numerous papyri examples of Ptolemaic date and it survives in modern Greek vernacular. Songs:the soldiers treat Simon of Cyrene (a town of Libya) as a Persian courier (\aggaros\) and impress him into service, probably because Jesus was showing signs of physical weakness in bearing his own Cross as the victims had to do, and not as a mere jest on Simon. "Gethsemane, betrayal, the ordeal of the past sleepless night, scourging, have made the flesh weak" (Bruce). Yes, and the burden of sin of the world that was breaking his heart. {His cross} (\ton stauron autou\). Jesus had used the term cross about himself (16:24|). It was a familiar enough picture under Roman rule. Jesus had long foreseen and foretold this horrible form of death for himself (Matthew:20:19; strkjv@23:24; strkjv@26:2|). He had heard the cry of the mob to Pilate that he be crucified (27:22|) and Pilate's surrender (27:26|) and he was on the way to the Cross (27:31|). There were various kinds of crosses and we do not know precisely the shape of the Cross on which Jesus was crucified, though probably the one usually presented is correct. Usually the victim was nailed (hands and feet) to the cross before it was raised and it was not very high. The crucifixion was done by the soldiers (27:35|) in charge and two robbers were crucified on each side of Jesus, three crosses standing in a row (27:38|).

rwp@Matthew:27:42 @{He saved others; himself he cannot save} (\allous es“sen; heauton ou dunatai s“sai\). The sarcasm is true, though they do not know its full significance. If he had saved himself now, he could not have saved any one. The paradox is precisely the philosophy of life proclaimed by Jesus himself (Matthew:10:39|). {Let him now come down} (\katabat“ nun\). Now that he is a condemned criminal nailed to the Cross with the claim of being "the King of Israel" (the Jews) over his head. Their spiteful assertion that they would then believe upon Jesus (\ep' auton\) is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse. When Jesus wrought his greatest miracles, they wanted "a sign from heaven." These "pious scoffers" (Bruce) are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ whose character and power and deity are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the god of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind in heart.

rwp@Revelation:5:13 @{Every created thing} (\pƒn ktisma\). Every creature in a still wider antiphonal circle beyond the circle of angels (from \ktiz“\, for which see strkjv@1Timothy:4:4; strkjv@James:1:18|), from all the four great fields of life (in heaven, upon the earth, under the earth as in verse 3|, with on the sea \epi tˆs thalassˆs\ added). No created thing is left out. This universal chorus of praise to Christ from all created life reminds one of the profound mystical passage in strkjv@Romans:8:20-22| concerning the sympathetic agony of creation (\ktisis\) in hope of freedom from the bondage of corruption. If the trail of the serpent is on all creation, it will be ultimately thrown off. {Saying} (\legontas\). Masculine (construction according to sense, personifying the created things) if genuine, though some MSS. have \legonta\ (grammatical gender agreeing with \panta\) present active participle of \leg“\, to say. {And to the Lamb} (\kai t“i arni“i\). Dative case. Praise and worship are rendered to the Lamb precisely as to God on the throne. Note separate articles here in the doxology as in strkjv@4:11| and the addition of \to kratos\ (active power) in place of \ischus\ (reserve of strength) in strkjv@5:12|.

rwp@Revelation:8:2 @{Stand} (\hestˆkasin\). Perfect active of \histˆmi\ (intransitive). Another "hebdomad" so frequent in the Apocalypse. The article (the seven angels) seems to point to seven well-known angels. In Enoch strkjv@20:7 the names of seven archangels are given (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, Remiel) and "angels of the Presence" is an idea like that in strkjv@Isaiah:63:9|. We do not know precisely what is John's idea here. {Seven trumpets} (\hepta salpigges\). We see trumpets assigned to angels in strkjv@Matthew:24:31; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:52; strkjv@Revelation:4:1,4|. See also the use of trumpets in strkjv@Joshua:6:13; strkjv@Joel:2:1|. These seven trumpets are soon to break the half hour of silence. Thus the seven trumpets grow out of the opening of the seventh seal, however that fact is to be interpreted.

rwp@Revelation:12:4 @{His tail} (\hˆ oura autou\). See strkjv@9:10,19|. {Draweth} (\surei\). Present active indicative of \sur“\, old verb, to drag, here alone in the Apocalypse, but see strkjv@John:21:8|. {The third part of the stars} (\to triton t“n aster“n\). Like a great comet is this monster. See strkjv@Daniel:8:10|. Perhaps only the third is meant to soften the picture as in strkjv@Revelation:8:7f|. {Did cast them} (\ebalen autous\). Second aorist active indicative. Charles takes this to refer to a war in heaven between the good angels and Satan, with the fall of some angels (Jude:1:6|). But John may have in mind the martyrs before Christ (Hebrews:11:32f.|) and after Christ's ascension (Matthew:23:35|). {Stood} (\estˆken\). Imperfect active of a late verb, \stˆk“\, from the perfect \hestˆka\ of \histˆmi\, graphic picture of the dragon's challenge of the woman who is about to give birth. {When she was delivered} (\hotan tekˆi\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \tikt“\, "whenever she gives birth." {That he might devour} (\hina kataphagˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \katesthi“\, to eat up (down). Cf. strkjv@Jeremiah:28:34|. This is what Pharaoh did to Israel (Exodus:1:15-22; strkjv@Psalms:85:13; strkjv@Isaiah:27:1; strkjv@51:9; strkjv@Ezekiel:29:3|). Precisely so the devil tried to destroy the child Jesus on his birth.

rwp@Revelation:16:11 @{They blasphemed} (\eblasphˆmˆsan\) {and they repented not} (\kai ou metenoˆsan\). Precisely as in verse 9|, which see. Not just because of the supernatural darkness, but also "because of their pains" (\ek t“n pon“n aut“n\, plural here and same use of \ek\) and their sores (\kai ek t“n helk“n aut“n\, as in verse 2|, only plural, and same use of \ek\). {Of their works} (\ek t“n erg“n aut“n\). "Out of their deeds," and addition to verse 9|. {The God of heaven} (\ton theon tou ouranou\). As in strkjv@Daniel:2:44|. Like the pride of Nebuchadrezzar against Jehovah.

rwp@Revelation:19:4 @{Fell down and worshipped God} (\epesan kai prosekunˆsan t“i the“i\). Precisely as in strkjv@7:11|, which see. The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures take up the antiphonal chorus of the angels.

rwp@Revelation:20:2 @{He laid hold on} (\ekratˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \krate“\, to seize. {The dragon} (\ton drakonta\). Accusative after \ekratˆsen\ instead of the genitive as in strkjv@2:1|. He has been behind the beast and the false prophet from the start. Now he is seized. {The old serpent} (\ho ophis ho archaios\). Precisely the description in strkjv@12:9|, only the nominative is here retained, though in apposition with the accusative \ton drakonta\, a frequent anacoluthon in the Apocalypse (1:5|, etc.). Swete calls it a parenthesis. {Which is} (\hos estin\). The relative here relieves the construction and takes the place of \ho kaloumenos\ in strkjv@12:9| before \Diabolos kai ho Satanƒs\. {And bound him} (\kai edˆsen auton\). First aorist active indicative of \de“\. {For a thousand years} (\chilia etˆ\). Accusative of extent of time. Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one. Perhaps Peter has given us the only solution open to us in strkjv@2Peter:3:8| when he argues that "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." It will help us all to remember that God's clock does not run by ours and that times and seasons and programs are with him. This wonderful book was written to comfort the saints in a time of great trial, not to create strife among them.

rwp@Revelation:20:4 @{And they sat upon them} (\kai ekathisan ep' autous\). First aorist active indicative of \kathiz“\. Another period here apparently synchronous (verse 7|) with the confinement of Satan in the abyss. No subject is given for this plural verb. Apparently Christ and the Apostles (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30|) and some of the saints (1Corinthians:6:3|), martyrs some hold. {Judgment was given unto them} (\krima edothˆ autois\). First aorist passive of \did“mi\. Picture of the heavenly court of assizes. {The souls} (\tas psuchas\). Accusative after \eidon\ at the beginning of the verse. {Of them that had been beheaded} (\t“n pepelekismen“n\). Genitive of the articular perfect passive participle of \pelekiz“\, old word (from \pelekus\ an axe, the traditional instrument for execution in republican Rome, but later supplanted by the sword), to cut off with an axe, here only in N.T. See strkjv@6:9; strkjv@18:24; strkjv@19:2| for previous mention of these martyrs for the witness of Jesus (1:9; strkjv@12:17; strkjv@19:10|). Others also besides martyrs shared in Christ's victory, those who refused to worship the beast or wear his mark as in strkjv@13:15; strkjv@14:9ff.; strkjv@16:2; strkjv@19:20|. {And they lived} (\kai ezˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \za“\. If the ingressive aorist, it means "came to life" or "lived again" as in strkjv@2:8| and so as to verse 5|. If it is the constative aorist here and in verse 5|, then it could mean increased spiritual life. See strkjv@John:5:21-29| for the double sense of life and death (now literal, now spiritual) precisely as we have the second death in strkjv@Revelation:2:11; strkjv@20:6,14|. {And reigned with Christ} (\kai ebasileusan meta tou Christou\). Same use of the first aorist active indicative of \basileu“\, but more clearly constative. Beckwith and Swete take this to apply solely to the martyrs, the martyrs' reign with Christ.

rwp@Revelation:21:5 @{Behold, I make all things new} (\Idou kaina poi“ panta\). The first time since strkjv@1:8| that God has been represented as speaking directly, though voices have come out of the throne before (21:3|) and out of the sanctuary (16:1,17|), which may be from God himself, though more likely from one of the angels of the Presence. This message is not addressed to John (7:14; strkjv@17:7; strkjv@21:6; strkjv@22:6|), but to the entire world of the blessed. See strkjv@Isaiah:43:18f.| for the words (\Idou eg“ poi“ kaina\). The idea of a new heaven and a new earth is in strkjv@Isaiah:65:17; strkjv@66:22; strkjv@Psalms:102:25f|. For the locative here with \epi\ (\epi t“i thron“i\) see strkjv@7:10; strkjv@19:4| (genitive more usual, strkjv@4:9f.; strkjv@5:1,7,13|, etc.). See strkjv@20:11| for the picture. {And he saith} (\kai legei\). Probably this means a change of speakers, made plain by \moi\ (to me) in many MSS. An angel apparently (as in strkjv@14:13; strkjv@19:9f.|) assures John and urges him to write (\grapson\ as in strkjv@1:11; strkjv@2:1,8,12,18; strkjv@3:1,7,14; strkjv@14:3|). The reason given (\hoti\, for) is precisely the saying in strkjv@22:6| and he uses the two adjectives (\pistoi kai alˆthinoi\) employed in strkjv@19:11| about God himself, and strkjv@3:14| about Christ. In strkjv@19:9| \alˆthinoi\ occurs also about "the words of God" as here. They are reliable and genuine.

rwp@Revelation:21:10 @{He carried me away in the Spirit} (\apˆnegken me en pneumati\). See same language in strkjv@17:7| when John received a vision of the Harlot City in a wilderness. Here it is "to a mountain great and high" (\epi oros mega kai hupsˆlon\). Songs:it was with Ezekiel (Ezekiel:40:2|) and so the devil took Jesus (Matthew:4:8|). It was apparently not Mount Zion (14:1|), for the New Jerusalem is seen from this mountain. "The Seer is carried thither 'in spirit' (cf. strkjv@1:10; strkjv@4:1|); the Angel's \deuro\ is a _sursum cor_ to which his spirit under the influence of the 'Spirit of revelation' (Ephesians:1:17|) at once responds" (Swete). {And he shewed me} (\kai edeixen moi\). First aorist active indicative of \deiknumi\, just as he had said he would do in verse 9| (\deix“ soi\, I will shew thee). Precisely the same words about Jerusalem as in verse 2|, save the absence of \kainˆn\ (New).

rwp@Romans:8:18 @{To us-ward} (\eis hˆmƒs\). We shall be included in the radiance of the coming glory which will put in the shadow the present sufferings. Precisely the same idiom here with \mellousan doxan\ (aorist passive infinitive of \apokaluphthˆnai\) occurs in strkjv@Galatians:3:23| with \mellousan pistin\, which see.

rwp@Romans:10:7 @{Into the abyss} (\eis tˆn abusson\). See strkjv@Luke:8:31| for this old Greek word (\a\ privative and \bussos\) bottomless like sea (Psalms:106:26|), our abyss. In strkjv@Revelation:9:1| it is the place of torment. Paul seems to refer to Hades or Sheol (Acts:2:27,31|), the other world to which Christ went after death. {To bring Christ up} (\Christon anagagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \anag“\ and dependent on \katabˆsetai\ (shall descend). Christ has already risen from the dead. The deity and resurrection of Christ are precisely the two chief points of attack today on the part of sceptics.

rwp@Romans:11:17 @{Branches} (\klad“n\). From \kla“\, to break. {Were broken off} (\exeklasthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekkla“\. Play on the word \klados\ (branch) and \ekkla“\, to break off. Condition of first class, assumed as true. Some of the individual Jews (natural Israel) were broken off the stock of the tree (spiritual Israel). {And thou} (\kai su\). An individual Gentile. {Being a wild olive} (\agrielaios “n\). This word, used by Aristotle, occurs in an inscription. Ramsay (_Pauline Studies_, pp. 219ff.) shows that the ancients used the wild-olive graft upon an old olive tree to reinvigorate the tree precisely as Paul uses the figure here and that both the olive tree and the graft were influenced by each other, though the wild olive graft did not produce as good olives as the original stock. But it should be noted that in verse 24| Paul expressly states that the grafting of Gentiles on to the stock of the spiritual Israel was "contrary to nature" (\para phusin\). {Wast grafted in} (\enekentristhˆs\). First aorist passive indicative of \enkentriz“\, to cut in, to graft, used by Aristotle. Belongs "to the higher _Koin‚_" (literary _Koin‚_) according to Milligan. {Partaker} (\sunkoin“nos\). Co-partner. {Fatness} (\piotˆtos\). Old word from \pi“n\ (fat), only here in N.T. Note three genitives here "of the root of the fatness of the olive."

rwp@Romans:11:22 @{The goodness and the severity of God} (\chrˆstotˆta kai apotomian theou\). See on strkjv@Romans:2:2| for \chrˆstotˆs\, kindness of God. \Apotomia\ (here alone in the N.T.) is from \apotomos\, cut off, abrupt, and this adjective from \apotemn“\, to cut off. This late word occurs several times in the papyri. {If thou continue} (\ean epimenˆis\). Third class condition, \ean\ and present active subjunctive. {Otherwise} (\epei\). Ellipse after \epei\, "since if thou dost not continue." {Thou also} (\kai su\). Precisely as the Jewish branches of verse 17| were. {Shalt be cut off} (\ekkopˆsˆi\). Second future passive of \ekkopt“\, to cut out.

rwp@Romans:15:1 @{We the strong} (\hˆmeis hoi dunatoi\). Paul identifies himself with this wing in the controversy. He means the morally strong as in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:10; strkjv@13:9|, not the mighty as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26|. {The infirmities} (\ta asthenˆmata\). "The weaknesses" (cf. \asthen“n\ in strkjv@14:1,2|), the scruples "of the not strong" (\t“n adunat“n\). See strkjv@Acts:14:8| where it is used of the man weak in his feet (impotent). {To bear} (\bastazein\). As in strkjv@Galatians:6:2|, common in the figurative sense. {Not to please ourselves} (\mˆ heautois areskein\). Precisely Paul's picture of his own conduct in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:33|.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 30 11:39:57 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020